0

Transition Recovery Programme Progress Report

October 2011– June 2012

1

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... 3

1. Transition Recovery Programme: Overview ................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4

2. Financial Summary and Progress ...................................................................................... 5

3. Current and Future Directions ........................................................................................ 10

2. Cumulative Results: January 2008 – June 2012 ............................................................ 12

1. Sustainable livelihood opportunities created for crisis-affected communities ............... 12

2. Micro-credit and micro-enterprise development support provided to vulnerable communities and individuals with limited access to credit ............................................. 17

3. Community-focused housing provided to crisis-affected communities .......................... 22

4. Crisis-affected communities provided with basic infrastructure to enable access to socio-economic services and facilities ............................................................................. 25

5. Targeted communities assisted to establish equitable and inclusive community networks and advocate community needs ...................................................................... 29

6. Communities supported to introduce environmental-friendly livelihood practices/technology and ensure basic infrastructure adheres to environmental standards .......................................................................................................................... 35

3. Challenges and Lessons Learnt .................................................................................... 38

3

Acronyms AusAID Australian Agency for International Development C4P Communities for Peace Project C4P II Communities for Progress Project CBO Community-Based Organization CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CPD DA

Country Programme Document Differently-abled person

DRB District Review Board DS / GA DSD

District Secretary / Government Agent Divisional Secretariat Division

EU FGD FCSU

European Union Focus Group Discussions Fisheries Cooperative Societies’ Union

GA Government Agent GS / GN Grama Sevaka / Grama Niladhari I / NGO International / Non-Governmental Organization IDP Internally Displaced Persons LED Local Economic Development LDP Livelihood Development Project LH Livelihood MED M&E

Ministry of Economic Development Monitoring and Evaluation

MCI Micro-credit Institution PCNA PMU

Participatory Context and Needs Assessment Programme Management Unit

PNA Participatory Needs Assessment PO Producer Organization RLF Revolving Loan Fund

Transition Recovery Programme TRP UN UNCT

United Nations United Nations Country Team

UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNDP BCPR

United Nations Development Programme – Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery

UNDP CPAP United Nations Development Programme – Country Programme Action Plan

WDO WFP WH WO WRDS

Women Development Officer World Food Programme Women Headed Households Women’s Organization Women Rural Development Society

4

1. Transition Recovery Programme: Overview 1. Introduction The UNDP Transition Recovery Programme (TRP) is a multi-donor funded programme consisting of multiple projects that feed into its overall objective to support the socio-economic recovery of conflict-affected populations in the North, East, and adjacent Northern and Eastern districts of Sri Lanka. The Programme, in its last year of a five year cycle (2008-2012), continues to provide integrated socio-economic recovery support to returnees and host communities in target areas through a community and area-based development approach. The outputs and outcome of TRP interventions are defined as follows:

At the national level, TRP works closely with the Ministry of Economic Development (MED), other relevant government institutions, UN agencies, International/Non-Governmental Organizations (I/NGOs) and donors under the overall direction of its Project Board. At the district level, TRP is implemented through a network of seven field offices in the North and East in consultation with the District Secretary/Government Agent (DS/GA), government technical departments, provincial and local authorities, other UN agencies, I/NGOs, Community-based Organizations (CBOs) and beneficiary communities. This report presents the cumulative results of TRP project implementation from January 2008 to June 2012, based on the six output components described above. It also includes information on cumulative financial expenditure over the reporting period October 2011 to June 2012 and observations on the Programme’s current and future directions.

1. Sustainable livelihood opportunities created for crisis-affected communities 1

2. Micro-credit and micro-enterprise development support provided to vulnerable communities and individuals with limited access to credit

3. Community-focused housing provided to crisis-affected communities 3

4. Crisis-affected communities provided with basic infrastructure to enable access to socio-economic services and facilities 4 5. Targeted communities assisted to establish equitable and inclusive community networks and advocate community needs 5 6. Communities supported to introduce environmentally-friendly livelihood practices / technology and ensure basic infrastructure adheres to environmental standards

Area-Based Recovery for Social Cohesion

Social cohesion and

socio-economic recovery within and

between communities enhanced through an integrated area-based

approach targeting the most vulnerable

populations - returnees and host

communities, taking into account gender equality, in conflict-affected areas and

areas with increased risk of community

tensions

Pillars/Outputs Outcome

5

2. Financial Summary and Progress Donor Commitments for Transition Recovery Programme: 2008-20121

1 As of 30 June 2012.

6

Donor Project funds 2008 to date (USD) Total Funds committed (USD)

%

UNDP TRAC TRAC 4,100,000 4,100,000 10%

Japan LDP 5,284,314 5,284,314 13%

AusAID IRF 479,846

5,755,419 14%

C4P 2,374,461

C4P II 2,901,112

Government of Australia

CHAP I 335,892

815,738 2% CHAP II 479,846

Government of Germany

Tsunami Housing 136,000 136,000 0%

CIDA CRP III 981,354

4,313,639 10%

VRP 1,238,044

RALP 2,094,241

Norway JRP II 850,000 850,000 2%

UNDP BCPR North 3,600,000

11,311,904 27%

East 3,500,000

ST 2,000,000

RCI II 1,200,000

JRP 1,011,904

EU CRP 9,183,243 9,183,243 22%

Coca Cola EDM 100,000 100,000 0%

Total 41,850,257 100% * TRAC - Target Resource Assignment from the Core, LDP - Livelihood Development Project, IRF - Livelihood Development Project funded through AusAID's International Refugee Fund, C4P - Communities for Peace Project, C4P II - Communities for Progress Project, CHAP I - Immediate Income Generation Project funded through Common Humanitarian Action Plan, CHAP II - Alternative Livelihood Development Project funded through Common Humanitarian Action Plan, Tsunami-Housing Moratuwa Project, CRP III - Community Rehabilitation Project III, VRP - Vanni Rehabilitation Project, RALP – Rebuilding Agricultural Livelihoods Project, JRP II - Jaffna Rehabilitation Project II, North- Early Recovery and Social Cohesion in Northern Sri Lanka Project, East - Early Recovery and Social Cohesion in Eastern Sri Lanka Project, ST - Strengthening Capacities for Social Transformation Project, RCI II - Recovery Coordination Initiative Project II, JRP - Jaffna Rehabilitation Project, CRP - Community Recovery Project, EDM - Every Drop Matters Project

7

8

Overall Programme Delivery - Transition Recovery Programme (as of 30th June 2012)

Project Donor Duration

Districts* Total

Budget (USD)

Cumulative Expense (USD) as of 30 Jun 12

Commitments (USD)

Delivery Rate

From To

Social Transformation (BCPR-ST) Project

UNDP-BCPR

Jun.2008 Feb.2012 AMP, BAT, TRI, MAN, VAV,JAF ,KILI, MUL, ANU, POL PUT

1,690,070

1,676,689.27

874.43 99%

Early Recovery and Social Cohesion in the East (BCPR-East) Project

UNDP-BCPR

Jan.2009 Jun.2012 TRI, BAT, AMP 3,043,847

2,609,664.00

83,371.91 86%

Early Recovery and Social Cohesion in the North (BCPR-North) Project

UNDP-BCPR

Oct.2009 Dec 2012 VAV,JAF ,KIL, MUL, MAN 2,907,892

2,497,148.50

201,940.22 86%

Community Recovery Project (CRP) EU Sep.2009 Dec 2012 BAT, TRI, MAN, VAV,KIL, MUL

9,183,243

5,830,547.19

936,162.72 63%

Communities for Progress (C4P II) Project

AusAID Jun.2010 May.2013 JAF,VAV,ANU,POL, AMP 2,732,103

1,107,358.82

564,974.48 41%

Rebuilding Agricultural Livelihoods Project (RALP)

CIDA April.2011 Mar 2013 KIL,MUL,JAF 1,753,190

102,593.06

724,100.78 6%

Jaffna Rehabilitation Project II (JRP II)

Govt.of Norway

Dec.2010 Apr.2012 JAF 750,460

737,907.55

- 98%

Every Drop Matters (EDM) Project Coca Cola

Aug.2011 Jul.2012 POL,TRI 100,000

78,850.38

10,041.15 79%

Sub-Total (Programme) 22,160,805 14,640,758.77

2,521,465.69 66%

Delivery figures are based on Combined Delivery Report CDR).

This table does not include projects that were completed prior to the reporting period of October 2011 - June 2012.

* AMP - Ampara, BAT - Baticaloa, JAF - Jaffna, KIL - Kilinochchi, MAN - Mannar, MUL - Mulaitivu, TRI - Trincomalee, VAV - Vavuniya , PUT - Puttalam, ANU- Anuradhapura, POL - Polonnaruwa

9

Overall Delivery for Management and Operations Pooled Fund (as of 30th June 2012)

Project Donor Duration

Districts* Total

Budget (USD)

Cumulative Expense (USD) as of 30 Jun 12

Commitments (USD)

Delivery Rate

From To

TRAC Management & Operations UNDP Jan.2008 Dec.2012 JAF, MAN, VAV, KIL, MUL, TRI, BAT, AMP, PUT, ANU, POL

4,100,000 3,683,645 5,249 90%

Social Transformation (BCPR-ST) Project Management & Operations

UNDP-BCPR

Jun.2008 Feb.2012 AMP, BAT, TRI, MAN, VAV,JAF ,KIL, MUL, ANU, POL, PUT

174,900 174,430

- 100%

Early Recovery and Social Cohesion in the East (BCPR-East) Project - Management & Operations

UNDP-BCPR

Jan.2009 Jun.2012 TRI, BAT, AMP 568,569 429,563

- 76%

Early Recovery and Social Cohesion in the North (BCPR-North) Project Management & Operations

UNDP-BCPR

Oct.2009 Dec.2012 VAV,JAF, KIL, MUL, MAN 727,139 571,851

- 79%

Communities for Progress (C4P II) Project Management & Operations

AusAID Jun.2010 May.2013 JAF,VAV,ANU,POL, AMP 606,141 448,388

- 74%

Rebuilding Agricultural Livelihoods (RALP) Project Management & Operations

CIDA Apr.2011 Dec.2012 KIL,MUL,JAF 291,308 114,556

- 39%

Jaffna Rehabilitation Project II (JRP II) Management & Operations

Govt.of Norway

Dec.2010 Apr.2012 JAF 86,020 86,010

- 100%

Sub-Total (Management and Operations Pooled Fund) 6,554,077 5,508,443 5,249 84%

Grand-Total 28,714,882 20,149,202 2,526,715 70%

Delivery figures are based on Combined Delivery Report (CDR). This table does not include projects that were completed prior to the reporting period of October 2011 - June 2012.

* AMP - Ampara, BAT - Baticaloa, JAF - Jaffna, KIL - Kilinochchi, MAN - Mannar, MUL - Mulaitivu, TRI - Trincomalee, VAV - Vavuniya , PUT - Puttalam, ANU- Anuradhapura, POL - Polonnaruwa

10

3. Current and Future Directions As reported in the previous year, the Programme was embarking on a critical analysis of its approach to socio-economic recovery and development interventions given the evolving post-war context and needs on the ground. Since then it has assessed its scope of work, refined its focus on outputs and activities, modified programme management arrangements and consolidated operational processes to increase the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of its work. Therefore, steps have been taken to improve programming practice to increase impact that contributes towards inclusive economic development, taking into consideration the needs of socially and economically disadvantaged communities. This has meant adopting conflict and gender-sensitive market-driven approaches to explore livelihood development in traditional as well as new and emerging economic sectors; engaging with a wide range of stakeholders particularly private sector actors; and more intensively consolidating multiple donor projects under an area-based programmatic framework to contribute significantly towards facilitating change. The key features of TRP’s modified programmatic direction are as follows: Recovery and development needs are being addressed through a more integrated local economic development approach: Following the end of the war, resettled communities are commencing subsistence livelihoods because of the limited opportunities, services and resources that are available to them. They are unable to engage in and benefit from emerging market-driven livelihood opportunities on equitable terms and to transition into more sustainable economic activity. On the other hand, various stakeholders, including the private sector, are seizing the opportunity to establish and stimulate economic activity in the region and to benefit from the available resources, especially agricultural and other natural resources. This has resulted in the evolution of UNDP’s programmatic approach to integrating a value chain approach so that local producers can be involved in high-value sectors across the chain, thereby increasing their inclusiveness in local economic activity and ensuring more profitable livelihood opportunities on equitable terms. This has required continuous investment in context and market analysis for UNDP to build understanding of the nuances of a local context, the opportunities for change, and how change will interact with diversity – including the impact on women, youth and also those who may be affected by unintended consequences of an intervention. It has also been important for UNDP to understand the risks faced by local communities and traditional ways of managing risks, and to assess how any intervention will affect these risks. There is further scope for UNDP to develop innovative ways to enable local communities to reduce or share risks in their market engagement. Accordingly, through its more recent cycle of donor funding, the Programme has been focusing on providing value-addition, market linkages, business planning and management capacity support as well as facilitating access to finance and other business development services to producer organizations (PO) operating at district and divisional levels. The benefits of these interventions to individuals are therefore more indirect than direct, and longer-term rather than short-term. However, as the Programme succeeds in improving the

11

conditions for business development, these interventions will have lasting and extensive benefits and multiplier effects involving thousands of members and tens of thousands of households as suppliers, employees and consumers. Inclusion of vulnerable groups in local economic development is essential: In challenging times – with probable increased insecurity of food, water and fossil fuels; climate instability; globalization and recession of markets; and after many years of declining investment in the former war affected areas, there is a renewed surge of interest in agriculture as well as the manufacturing and service sectors as part of the solution, thus diversifying the risks and livelihood options available to marginalized communities. UNDP adopts a two pronged approach of strengthening existing sources of primary and secondary income of local communities traditionally dependent upon agriculture production, whilst continually promoting skills development for quality employment and enterprise development in non-traditional sectors such as tourism, for communities to be able to operate in a future context that may be different to the present. Much of the focus in this process is for UNDP to support marginalized communities, women and youth to become owners and managers of businesses, assume leadership roles and equally contribute to and benefit from local economic development processes, thus bringing about positive changes in the enterprise culture, power dynamics and social affiliations in communities. The involvement of and support to local level stakeholders contributes to positive impact and sustainability: The involvement of and support to CBOs has been paramount in addressing the recovery and development needs of communities in affected regions. The CBOs, which had been previously inactive and non-existent in some areas, were revived as a result of the Programme’s work and supported to mobilize resources for collective action in their communities. TRP’s increased focus over the past year or more on local economic development has also entailed increased engagement with POs, in order to support local economic actors that could revitalize rural economic activity. TRP made a conscious decision to partner with POs because in most cases they were the only registered business entities in remote areas and could be strategically supported to become more productive, equitable, inclusive and effective in delivery of services to producers. UNDP has learnt that facilitating linkages is often important – between different communities; communities and intermediaries; POs and potential buyers and service providers; etc. To this end, UNDP has taken steps to understand better the different interests of stakeholders and facilitate exchanges and linkages with a view to ensuring relationships are strengthened for communities to be able to access services, represent their interests and integrate in the local economic development process on fair and equitable terms. Accordingly, considerable experience has been gained in facilitating the development of different types of POs such as rural co‐operatives. There are some notable successes from this approach, and working to develop and support POs is a critical strategy for achieving scale as it enables local producers to access key markets and related services by reducing transaction costs and increasing bargaining power as well as enabling wider institutional change through strengthening the producers’ voice, empowerment and influence. There are

12

some good examples in TRP of women‐managed POs in the Palmyra sector achieving significant economic and social success. UNDP recognizes that supporting POs to adopt appropriate business models, governance structures and rules that promote inclusivity and gender equity are important aspects of ensuring long-term sustainability of these organizations. To this end, UNDP will continue to provide technical inputs in order to support the development of different business models which have the potential to grow and expand into viable enterprises.

2. Cumulative Results: January 2008 – June 2012 This section of the report highlights the cumulative output level results of the Programme in keeping with its Results Framework and programmatic pillars. The report draws from various sources including donor reports, TRP indicator tracking sheets and specific reporting tools for the Project Board. Case-studies have been used to illustrate achievements against identified indicators.

1. Sustainable livelihood opportunities created for crisis-affected communities

TRP’s livelihood interventions have enabled returnees and socio-economically marginalized communities to regain some degree of economic independence within six months of receiving assistance. The revival of livelihood activities has helped increase production and household incomes to some extent during the recovery phase in these regions. This contributed to addressing acute vulnerability and the lack of access to basic needs following the phasing-out of humanitarian assistance. The evolving recovery to development context in the North and East has led to TRP adopting longer-term markets-based approaches to programming of new funding for livelihoods. Hence, there has been a shift from mostly individual-focused livelihood assistance identified through participatory context and needs assessments, to supporting the business development, management, processing, value-addition and marketing needs of POs based on producer organization-focused market assessments. This revised strategy looks to capacitate producer organizations to increase production, value-addition and marketing opportunities, thereby enabling its members to benefit from increased incomes and improved member services.2 The results of this component are as follows:

Overall, the Programme’s support to communities has ensured greater access to livelihood inputs3 for returnee and host communities. Across all operational districts,

2 These interventions are covered through Pillar 2 results on micro- and small-enterprise development.

3 Beneficiaries have been directly provided with livelihood recovery inputs such as home garden kits, perennial

seeds, pulses, fertiliser, farming tools, water pumps, barbed wire to secure cultivated areas, fingerlings, cattle, poultry, goats, fishing boats, canoes and fishing gear (nets, vallams, outboard motors). Other types of inputs

13

TRP has directly provided livelihood inputs to over 15,000 beneficiaries (39% women) in predominantly the agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries sectors to restart or expand their livelihood activities. This has helped improve the quantity, quality and efficiency of production in these sectors. Approximately 84% of these beneficiaries (nearly 13,000 people, and 87% of men and 79% of women) have been able to initiate livelihood activities within six months of receiving inputs.

Secondary inputs such as agriculture and fisheries machinery and equipment4 have been provided to CBOs and POs for use by the community. This has enabled these communities to obtain services on time and at minimal costs, add value to their products and meet market demands, thereby contributing to increasing production and income capacities. The income generated by the CBOs and POs from providing these services have been used to meet the management costs of these institutions and maintenance costs of the machinery and equipment.

Improved livelihood methods, technologies and training have contributed to developing more efficient farming practices and increasing the production capacities of farmers. A total of 7,711 beneficiaries have been trained5 in order to restart livelihoods. Technical trainings on advanced production techniques and modern agricultural practices were provided by various sector-specific service providers, such as the Departments of Agriculture, Irrigation and Fisheries as well as the private sector. Training opportunities were provided following the assessment of needs and market demands, where applicable, in order to ensure compatibility between these opportunities, skills and knowledge gaps and their marketability. Exchange and exposure visits have also paved the way for producer-to-producer knowledge sharing as well as learning new technologies, value-addition techniques and marketing opportunities.

Together with this, 56 government departments6 were provided with necessary infrastructure and other support such as technical equipment, office machinery and transportation means, which resulted in 93% of them expanding service provision to returnee and marginalized communities, particularly in remote areas. Government officials and extension workers were able to increase their outreach and frequency of field visits which improved the effectiveness of service delivery. This also strengthened linkages between service providers and remote communities, and engendered greater commitment towards successful completion and post-implementation monitoring of projects.

include support to restart or expand micro-businesses such as groceries, tailoring and barber shops, food processing, vegetable stalls in local markets and mobile fish businesses. 4 Vehicles (lorries, two-wheel tractors, trailers, tillers and combined threshers, rice mill machinery and food

processing and value-addition machinery, fisheries equipment such as netting machines, boat making moulds, etc. 5 Trainings have been provided, for instance, in compost making, paddy cultivation, banana cultivation,

operating farm machinery, home gardening, vegetable production, soil sampling and testing, seed quality testing and conformity, vegetable seed storage and packing, post harvest technology, production of planting material, cattle and other livestock rearing, dairy farming, poultry production (eggs), fisheries activities, and palmyra production. 6 Department of Provincial Irrigation, Department of Agrarian Development, District Agriculture Training

Centre, Fisheries Department, Pradeshiya Sabhas, the Coconut Cultivation Board, and DSD and GN offices.

14

Please refer the table below for detailed results.

Indicator Overall indicator

values

Disaggregated data Column 1

Result Disaggregated data Column 2

Result

# of beneficiaries in target communities that received livelihood related assistance

7 15,454

Male 9,417 Female 6,037 ≤35 6,925 >35 8,529 Agriculture 9,924 Fisheries 1,067 Animal husbandry 2,131 Other

8 2,332

Primary9 12,876 Secondary

10 2,578

WH11

1,555 DA12

269 Cash 2,067 Inputs

13 13,387

# of beneficiaries in target communities trained on improved livelihood practices and technologies

14

7,711

Male

3,758

Female

3,953

≤35 4,287 >35 3,424 Agriculture 4,839 Fisheries 155 Animal husbandry 1,355 Other

15 1,362

Primary 6,087 Secondary 1,624 WH 610 DA 60

% of beneficiaries in target communities have initiated livelihood activities, within 6 months of receiving assistance

84%

# of beneficiaries

received assistance

# of beneficiaries initiated LH

activities %

Male 9,417 8,186 87% Female 6,037 4,796 79% ≤35 6,925 5,546 80% >35 8,529 7,436 87% Agriculture 9,924 8,941 90% Fisheries 1,067 716 67% Animal husbandry 2,131 1,738 82% Other

16 2,332 1,587 68%

Primary 12,876 10,497 82% Secondary 2,578 2,485 96% WH 1,555 1,293 83% DA 269 251 93%

% of beneficiaries in

59% # of

beneficiaries # of beneficiaries

adopting improved %

17

7 Inputs such as home gardening packages, agriculture tools and equipment, fishing gear and livestock. This

indicator does not include training and infrastructure which is covered under separate indicators, 8 Small businesses such as food processing, and service providers such as barbers, carpenters and masons.

9 As primary source of income.

10 As secondary source of income.

11 Women headed households and referring to instances where the main responsibility of managing the

household is done by the main female member of the family. 12

Includes at least one differently-abled person within the family. 13

Physical assistance and equipment. 14

Related to trainings on new technologies and methods, value-addition, maintenance of equipment and machinery, etc. 15

Small businesses such as food processing, and vocational training such as masonry, carpentry and beauty culture. 16

Small businesses such as food processing, and service providers such as masons and carpenters. 17

Refers to % of those who have received assistance.

15

target communities adopting improved livelihood practices and technologies, within 6 months of receiving assistance

received assistance

livelihood practices and technologies

Male 9,417 5,726 61% Female 6,037 3,465 57% ≤35 6,925 4,383 63% >35 8,529 4,808 56% Agriculture 9,924 6,422 65% Fisheries 1,067 612 57% Animal husbandry 2,131 1206 57% Other

18 2,332 951 41%

Primary 12,876 7,465 58% Secondary 2,578 1,726 67% WH 1,555 890 57% DA 269 175 65%

% of assisted government departments that have expanded service delivery to target communities

93%

# of departments

assisted

56

# of departments having expanded service delivery

52

Box 1: Business Achievements 2012 for the Palm Producers’ Cooperative Society – Pandaitharippu supported by the Canadian International Development Agency under the Rebuilding Agricultural Livelihoods Project (CIDA-RALP) Result: Increased production and marketing of high-value products

The Co-operative has entered into high value markets. The Co-operative has marketing arrangements with Cargills supermarkets, Sidha medical practitioners, etc for marketing of palm sugar and jaggery.

The jaggery is marketed at higher cost to sweet toddy at 480Rs/kg (1kg of jaggery is made from 9 litres of sweet toddy @ 37Rs/Lt.).

The value-addition of sweet toddy has reduced the production and sale of alcohol (fresh toddy) from 97,550 Lt. in July 2011 to 77,378 Lt. in July 2012.

Business Plan target for year 2012; Monthly jaggery production is to be 750 Kg. The Co-operative has already achieved the target. Production of jaggery in July 2012 was 949 Kg while in July 2011 it was 384 Kg, thereby indicating a 247% increase in production.

Result: Increased employment opportunities targeting women and youth

The Co-operative has created additional employment opportunities targeting women and youth as a result of expansion of business operations. The number of positions has increased by 250% (from 4 to 10 positions of whom 40% are women).

Result: More members benefit from business expansion

Due to the increasing demand for raw materials, the Co-operative has increased the farm gate prices for sweet toddy and introduced an incentive scheme [Ex: Spouses of the sweet toddy tappers will be rewarded (cash vouchers) at the monthly conference, for those who provide more than 500 Lt. per month].

18

Small businesses such as food processing, and service providers such as masons and carpenters.

16

Jaggery production using traditional

methods

Jaggery production final stages

Jaggery moulding Sweet toddy suppliers details

being checked by SLSI

Membership has increased by 30% with 75 new members joining the Co-operative and becoming suppliers.

Result: Adoption of improved business practices

The management of the Co-operative has increased awareness about their business purpose, which markets they operate (and could operate) in and the strategies to operate in a changing market environment.

Through business planning, the Co-operative has forecasted to increase its production by 50% over the next three years.

The business plan has enabled the Co-operative to carry out negotiations with financial institutions to access loans to finance their business expansion.

The business counseling support has increased the confidence, skills and capacities of the management to effectively manage their businesses taking into consideration internal and external changes.

Regular meetings are facilitated between the Co-operative and the Department of Co-operative Development to improve the practices related to purchasing and human resource management.

Case study: Inland Fish Farming in Mahadiulwewa Stage II, Morawewa, Trincomalee Inland fish farming is a form of aquaculture that uses ponds or irrigation ditches to raise fish and is a popular livelihood option for people living around inland water bodies in rural areas. However, fishing as a livelihood was banned in conflict-affected areas during the height of the war for security reasons and the industry has suffered due to limited access to water bodies. The Government of Japan funded Farmers get together to harvest fingerlings

17

Livelihood Development Project (J-LDP) supported the revival of fish farming among the returnee population in the village as well as its surrounding area, as an alternative income generation activity. In partnership with the Farmers Organisation, the project provided six selected families with training on fish farming and equipment to organize and prepare ponds, harvest and pack fish for sale. These families established five ponds. On account of the limited size of these ponds, the fish farmers harvest fingerlings when they are two-inches long and sell it to another fish farmer with a bigger water tank. Due to the geographical characteristics of the area, fingerlings harvest can be done twice a year excluding the dry season. “It takes two months for the sac fry which is brought from a hatchery in Anuradhapura to grow up to two-inches”, a fisheries expert supervising the fingerlings harvest explained.

As fish farming is very labour intensive, particularly during the harvest season fish farmers are mobilized through the FO to work together and share resources. From early in the morning to late in the afternoon, all fish farmers would do their rounds along their respective ponds to help harvest the fingerlings. As a result of this support, for example, one of the beneficiary families is, able to supplement their primary income from teaching and doing seasonal masonry work with inland fishing as an alternative form of

income generation as the family is able to sell up to 30,000 fingerlings from the second harvest for a profit of Rs. 52,500 (Rs.1.75 per fish). “We have taken to pond fishing. We devote our hours and daily efforts to feed rice dust to our fish and care for them. We hope to re-pay a bank loan using the earnings from the second harvest and buy construction materials to complete our house that only has a foundation,” Beneficiary, Mahadiulwewa Stage II

2. Micro-credit19 and micro-enterprise20 development support provided to vulnerable communities and individuals with limited access to credit

19

Although referred to as micro-credit, TRP in most instances has been providing grants to CBOs for operating revolving loan funds for returnees, the majority of whom were recommencing their lives and livelihoods after multiple displacements over many years. Where required, loans to individual recipients were coupled with trainings on alternative and traditional livelihoods as well as business development skills. In a few instances, TRP has also provided funds to regional micro-finance institutions for provision of micro-credit support to

Preparing fingerlings for sale

18

Grants for revolving loan funds and micro-enterprise assistance have provided vulnerable individuals with the financial means and skills to restart/commence income generation activities. The grants for revolving loan funds and the corresponding results that have been achieved are largely applicable to the period 2008-2010. With the changing post-war context from recovery to development in the North and East, TRP has progressively moved away from providing grants for revolving loan funds to facilitating lending arrangements between individual entrepreneurs/organizations and formal financial institutions. In addition, as part of its evolving strategy of markets-based approaches to livelihood development (referred to above under Pillar 1 results), TRP has assisted selected POs with market assessments as well as business plan development and implementation through regular counseling support from business development service providers. This is being coupled with assistance to strengthen the production, value-addition and marketing capacities of these organizations.21 The results of this component are as follows:

TRP has provided grants to 682 beneficiaries that have helped restart and/or expand businesses, mainly in the agriculture, fisheries and animal husbandry sectors22. While 95% of the beneficiaries have initiated micro-enterprises within three months of receiving assistance, these grants have particularly helped women (56% of recipients) engage in business-oriented activities during the recovery phase.

2,603 individuals, mainly youth, were trained on business planning and enterprise development skills, including Start Your Business (SYB) and Improve Your Business (IYB) training modules developed by the International Labour Organization. This led to the development of viable business plans, based on which TRP facilitated beneficiaries to make linkages with regional development and other state and private banks in districts such as Batticaloa and Jaffna. This has resulted in 682 individuals obtaining loans ranging from Rs.10,000 to Rs.50,000 to expand micro and small-scale businesses.

Business plan development and counseling as well as production, value-addition and marketing support to 11 POs in Jaffna, Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu districts in 2011/12 has led to some of these organizations23 demonstrating initial results. These include stronger organizational management, better linkages with government service providers and improved services to members. Marketing linkages have created employment

members who meet TRP’s selection criteria for livelihood development. These grants and corresponding results are by and large applicable to the period from 2008-10. 20

TRP is also supporting some small-scale enterprises. Micro-scale refers to enterprises with up to 10 employees; total assets up to US$10,000 or annual sales up to US$100,000. Small-scale refers to enterprises with 10-49 employees and total assets up to US$3 million. 21

Through activities such as infrastructure support (validated through business plans); technical trainings on value-addition, new product development and product certification; and support for operationalizing marketing plans (including product branding and registration, promotional campaigns, and support for negotiations with buyers with a view to entering into sales arrangements/contracts). 22

For instance, cattle and poultry rearing, fishing gear such as nets, rice flour making, retail shops and sewing shops. 23

Maritimepattu Fishermen Cooperative Societies Union Ltd – Mullaitivu; Fisheries Cooperative Societies Union – Kandavalai, Kilinochchi; Livestock Breeders' Cooperative Society (LIBCO) – Maritimepattu, Mulaitivu; LIBCO – Chavakachcheri, Jaffna; Multi Purpose Cooperative Society (Jachufi) – Chunnakam, Jaffna; and Palm Producers' Cooperative Society – Pandaitharippu, Jaffna.

19

opportunities, particularly for women and youth, to engage in value-addition and marketing activities, as well as increased the sales revenues of these organizations. These interventions have also contributed to increasing the incomes of producer members and suppliers.

Please refer the table below for detailed results

Indicator Overall indicator

values

Disaggregated data Column 1

Result Disaggregated data

Column 2

Result

# of beneficiaries in target communities trained on business planning and enterprise development skills

2,603

Male 712 Female 1,891 ≤35 1,466 >35 1,137 Agriculture 619 Fisheries 108 Animal husbandry 474 Other

24 1,402

Primary 2,001 Secondary 602 WH 330 DA 70

# of CBO / institution committee members in target communities trained on micro-credit operations

487

Male Female

Book keeping 169 147

Fund management 96 100

Business planning 78 100

Total 221 266

≤35 229 >35 258

FO 61 WO 185

Other25

241

# of beneficiaries in target communities received loans to initiate micro-enterprises

682

# of people received

loans

Male 300

Female 382 ≤35 283 >35 399 Agriculture 264 Fisheries 18 Animal husbandry 185 Other

26 215

Primary 546 Secondary 136 WH 98 DA 5

# of CBOs / institutions in target communities received seed capital to initiate revolving loan among community members

60

FO 9 WO 30

Other27

21

24

Service providers such as masons and carpenters; and small businesses such as food processing, boutiques, rice flour making, retail shops, mobile repair units and sewing shops. 25

Various Rural Development Societies (RDSs) such as fisheries organizations. 26

Service providers and small business owners. 27

Various RDSs such as fisheries organizations.

20

Ash Pumpkin after purchase

% of CBOs / institutions in target communities initiated revolving loan among community members

100%

# of CBOs received

seed capital

# of CBOs initiated

revolving loan

%

FO 9 9 100%

WO 30 30 100%

Other28

21 21 100%

% of beneficiaries in target communities initiated micro-enterprises, within 3 months of receiving loans

95%

# of people received

loan

# of people initiated micro-

enterprises

%

Male 300 287 96% Female 382 362 95% ≤35 283 265 94% >35 399 384 96% Agriculture 264 249 94% Fisheries 18 18 100% Animal husbandry 185 179 97% Other

29 215 201 93%

Primary 546 513 94% Secondary 136 136 100% WH 98 96 98% DA 5 4 80%

Case study: Improved Marketing Opportunities for Local Horticulture Farmers and Business Development Support for Fruit Processing Organization in Jaffna

Mr. K Navaratnam is a subsistence farmer who cultivates vegetables and fruits such as lime, green chilli, ash pumpkin and onion in his own land of 1.125 acres in Pillar Kovilady in Sankuvely, Jaffna. The primary source of income for his family of five, including three children, is from agriculture farming. Over the past two years, he has been experiencing fluctuations in market prices due to increased supply of

agriculture produce from other districts reaching local markets using the A9 road access. He says, “I used to be able to sell 1kg of fruit for Rs. 30 to 40 but these days I am only able to sell for Rs. 18 to 22 which has resulted in a

drop in the income of Rs. 6000 per month”. This is when Mr. Navaratnam discovered that he could supply to a fruit-based enterprise called Jachufi, which is registered under the Cooperative Act and administered by the Chunnakam Multi Purpose Cooperative Society. With the technical assistance of UNDP through the EU funded Livelihood Development Project in 2008, Jachufi has expanded its processing and marketing capacities and has developed a diverse product portfolio including fruit juice, cordials, jams, preserves and purees. As a result, Jachufi requires approximately 12,500kg of fruits per year. In order to meet its production needs, Jachufi directly works with seven famers in the district and three collectors from the Vanni region. Mr.

28

Various RDSs such as fisheries organizations. 29

Service providers and small business owners.

21

Preparing Ash Pumpkin for processing

Navaratnam was one of the famer-suppliers that Jachufi signed up to purchase fruits from regularly. He says, “Over the past two years, I have been supplying to Jachufi on average 300kg of ash pumpkin every three days from February to April. Because of the scale of supply required by Jachufi, I am able to supply almost all of my produce to Jachufi regularly. This has reduced my reliance on spot markets such as Maruthanarmadam and Chunnakam markets where 1 to 1.5kg from each round of supply are deducted for handling charges. Supplying to Jachufi even at Rs. 1 or 2 below the market price, works out to be much more profitable and the consistency in supply has brought about stability to my income generation. The regular income that I am able to receive from Jachufi has enabled me to meet the household consumption expenditure and education needs of my children. In addition, I was able to buy furniture for the house and have even started saving with the surplus income”. Under the Canadian International Development Agency funded Rebuilding Agricultural Livelihoods Project (CIDA-RALP) which commenced in 2011, UNDP has supported Jachufi with market assessment and an organizational appraisal to identify potential high value markets and adopt a business model that promotes long-term financial viability and engages its stakeholders on inclusive and equitable terms. Through this process, the managers and staff of Jachufi became better aware of the market segments the business is currently targeting, potential distributors the business could engage with, the strategies of competitors and what strategies the business would need to adopt improve its access to suppliers and markets. One of the areas that UNDP, with the support of the business development service provider, has assisted Jachufi with is to develop a three year viable business plan which has enabled the management to plan for the cost of operations and forecast capital requirements for future investments. The business plan has enabled Jachufi to carry out negotiation meetings with financial service providers for accessing loans for further expansion of the business. The business counseling support has enabled Jachufi to adopt more efficient supply chain and cash flow management practices, including purchasing practices that can increase transparency and ensure suppliers like Mr. Navaratnam receive their payments on time. Mr. Navaratnam says, “As a raw material supplier, I regularly participate in farmer meetings facilitated by Jachufi. In these meetings, we are able to discuss issues related to purchasing agreements and negotiate on prices. These meetings have helped us to improve our relationship with Jachufi’s management based on trust and transparency”. Jachufi has developed plans to further expand its farmer-supplier network through entering into direct agreements with farmer organizations such as Chavakacheri Fruit Producers Society, and providing extension services to farmer-suppliers with the aim of improving the quality of fruit production and meeting the quantity requirements of a growing enterprise.

22

Boiling Ash Pumpkin which is a base for jam

Mr. K Navaratnam and other suppliers in a discussion with the Management of Jachufi

Additionally, the business counseling sessions have enabled Jachufi’s management to integrate purchasing, production and marketing functions into core business operations in a holistic manner. This has led to the recruitment of a permanent Production Manager. In addition, periodic updates on business performance in relation to purchasing, production and sales are recorded

and displayed for the reference of stakeholders, including employees, suppliers and buyers, thus creating ownership of the business success among the

stakeholders. Regular meetings are also held with the Assistant Commissioner of Cooperative Development to discuss issues related to recruitment and salary of employees with a view to improving human resource management. Through RALP, Jachufi has also been supported to improve their production and quality management system through the technical advisory support from the Sri Lanka Standards Institute and University of Jaffna. This has resulted in developing guidelines for purchasing of fruits and launching of two new products, mango and nelli ready to drink juices, thus creating additional opportunities for entering new market segments at local and national levels. With the support of UNDP, Jachufi is presently holding discussions with a national supermarket chain and Multi-Purpose Cooperative Societies within and outside of the district to market its products through their sales outlets. Mr. Navartnam says, “I would be very happy to continue to supply to Jachufi. I look forward to supplying a wide range of raw materials such as lime and chilli as Jachufi continues to expand its product range and access to markets. This can encourage other farmers to also expand their cultivation knowing a secure market exists for their produce which can help many farming families to move away from subsistence farming”.

3. Community-focused housing provided to crisis-affected communities

TRP’s housing interventions have provided families with acceptable living conditions and a greater sense of privacy and security, while also offering a conducive environment to improve wellbeing. All houses have been built in accordance with locally accepted methods and using local material. The formation of self-help groups for the unskilled labour component and management of skilled labour through CBOs has been a critical part of the implementation approach, which contributed to community mobilization, self-reliance and income support over the short-term.

23

The results of this component are as follows:

A total of 772 permanent houses meeting construction standards have been completed, of which 96.6%30 have been occupied by beneficiaries. The certificate format that is given to beneficiaries when houses are handed-over was revised to include the names of the head of household and the spouse where relevant.

1,203 people participated in activities under this Pillar, through the formation of self-help groups, which have supported the construction process. Members of these groups were provided with basic construction training to facilitate involvement in the constructions and this basic skills-building has provided community members with the capacity to engage in other construction work at the local level, resulting in some impact on income generation in the short term. The self-help groups have created a platform to bring communities together to engage in collective action and their involvement in the construction helped foster a sense of ownership and self-esteem while minimizing dependency.

Please refer the table below for detailed results

Indicator Overall indicator

values

Disaggregated data Column 1

Result Disaggregated data Column 2

Result

% of permanent houses constructed in target communities meeting minimum required standards

100%

# of houses constructed

772 # of houses meeting minimum standards

772

# of houses owned by males

634 # of houses owned by females

138

# of beneficiaries in target communities that participate in construction work through self-help groups

1,203

Male

824

Female

379

≤35 475 >35 728

% of houses in target communities occupied within 3 months of handing over

96%

# of houses constructed

772

# of houses occupied

746

31

# of houses owned by males

456 # of houses owned by females

111

30

Of the remaining 26 units completed yet unoccupied, 10 houses have been handed-over to beneficiaries in Vasanthapuram, Jaffna and are to be occupied once the current school year ends and/or electricity is provided. 16 houses in Kokkilai East and Kokkilai West, Maritimepattu DSD, Mullaitivu are scheduled to be handed over to beneficiaries in the last quarter of 2012. 31

Refer previous footnote.

24

Completed housing

Case study: Housing Improved Housing in Vasanthapuram, Tellipalai DSD, Jaffna

Destroyed by the war and released from the High Security Zone in Jaffna for resettlement in November 2010, the village of Vasanthapuram village was supported by the Government of Norway through the Jaffna Rehabilitation Project II (JRP II) to restore permanent housing and supported community infrastructure, revive livelihoods, and develop the capacities of CBOs. Despite being resettled, the process of recommencing livelihoods proved to be challenging for the villagers, as lands were

overgrown and destroyed, and villagers were faced with the lack of housing, livelihood resources and support, livelihood infrastructure and common spaces to mobilize and unite to promote a sense of community. The project therefore improved the living environment through the construction of 50 permanent houses and 50 toilets. These facilities have provided shelter, access to better sanitation, and also supported the creation of a sense of inclusion for resettled families and normalcy to the lives of the younger generation. “For the last 20 years we have been seen as ‘welfare centre people’. My children always asked when are we going back home. They don’t know this village as all my three children were born in the welfare centre. We came to our village in January 2010 and made a small temporary house by removing material from the transitional shelter used at the welfare centre. My children are now safer and they have enough space to do their school work. This gives us confidence in life,” says housing beneficiary, Jeganathan Thamayanthy, 43 year old mother of three.

A participatory approach was used for housing construction involving various stakeholders including; Social Mobilizers who facilitated community mobilization; villagers who identified and prioritized needs; UNDP who directly purchased and delivered material; beneficiaries who were contacted through Civil Works Contracts to undertake semi-skilled activities that supported housing construction; and relevant state departments for technical guidance and quality assurance. Housing beneficiaries were organized into small self-help groups in order to support one another during the construction phase and were provided with basic technical training in construction. The creation of 10 self-help groups (five beneficiaries per group) facilitated construction, strengthened ownership through beneficiary involvement and increased interaction amongst resettled communities.

25

4. Crisis-affected communities provided with basic infrastructure to enable access to socio-economic services and facilities

Activities under this Pillar include the construction/renovation of livelihood and social infrastructure. Livelihood infrastructure has often played an essential complementary role in ensuring the viability of livelihood activities in communities, as well as in increasing income. TRP’s livelihood infrastructure related activities have helped increase production capacities, and enhanced the commercial value and marketability of livelihood products. Social infrastructure has facilitated resettlement and longer-term socio-economic recovery as well as social cohesion and transformation at the community level. The involvement of communities in providing semi-skilled and unskilled labour for rehabilitation of infrastructure injected more immediate income into households. It also enabled CBOs to gain experience in the management of small-scale construction projects with low level of technical difficulty under the guidance and monitoring of UNDP technical staff and government technical departments. The results of this component are the following:

624 livelihood and 385 social infrastructure units have been constructed/renovated, benefitting over 230,124 people in the war affected areas.

Infrastructure that promotes value-addition in agriculture, livestock and fisheries sectors have increased the quantity and quality of production, and enabled linkages with buyers including from the private sector. The value-addition facilities will especially benefiting women and youth engaged in these sectors by providing an income source.32 In the livestock and dairy industry, the construction of milk collection centers in the districts of Batticaloa, Mannar and Vavuniya have enabled increased the quantity (litres) of milk collection and prolonged shelf-life of milk for marketing and sales. The creation of market linkages with government and private companies such as Milk Industries of Lanka Company (MILCO), Nestlé and Chemical Industries Colombo (CIC) facilitate/promote/support supply links. The construction/renovation of irrigation-related infrastructure has ensured availability of water, which has enabled farmers to cultivate multiple seasons and increase the extent of cultivable land. Storage facilities have strengthened the bargaining power of producers who face external economic players, and therefore helped them to obtain better prices for their products. Processing centers have provided communities with options for value-addition.

As part of TRP’s evolving approach to address longer-term recovery and development needs,33 infrastructure, with the potential to bring about substantial economic gains, have been reinforced by supporting POs to develop viable business plans that enable these organizations raise the financed that would help to effectively meet the operational costs and increase profits.

Social infrastructure has supported various community needs, especially during the resettlement phase, providing safe water and sanitation; education facilities such as

32

For example members from producer organizations have benefited through skills development to undertake value addition activities using the produce. This includes dry fish, maldive fish, ghee, curd, rice milling, palmyrah jaggery and palmyrah handicrafts. 33

Particularly under the CIDA-RALP Project which commenced in 2011.

26

preschools, teachers’ quarters and rehabilitated schools; and multi-purpose buildings accommodating the GS/GN office, health clinic and CBO office that have enabled basic service delivery and community mobilization and interaction.

TRP has supported the construction/renovation of roads that facilitate both livelihood and social activities in recognition of the need to rebuild livelihoods as well as empower communities to access socio-economic services that ultimately have an impact on livelihood development. On one hand, construction/renovation of roads has improved access to agricultural land thereby increasing production. Often, coupled with the availability/provision of transportation facilities, it has linked remote communities to markets, contributing to reducing community dependency on middlemen and increasing profit margins. This has resulted in increasing the viability of livelihoods and household income. On the other hand, communities have gained better access to schools, health clinics and other basic government services. Improved road conditions have also led to communities having greater interaction with neighboring villages.

The community-based implementation approach, where CBOs have managed infrastructure projects of low technical difficulty using cash-for-work where appropriate, has provided target communities with short-term employment and income-generation opportunities whilst injecting cash into the local economy. Through the engagement of unskilled and skilled labour, to date 72,715 paid labour days have been created. In addition, developing the capacities of local communities to engage in basic construction and maintenance work, including masonry, bricklaying and cement mixing, has enhanced their ability to maintain basic infrastructure and employment options in the construction sector.

Please refer the table below for detailed results.

Indicator Overall indicator

values

Disaggregated data Column 1

Result Disaggregated data

Column 2

Result

# of livelihood related infrastructure facilities constructed / renovated in an environmentally friendly manner

624

# of families

Agro wells 84 464 Tanks 9 954 Roads 63 13,540 84.94 km Irrigation channels 20 2,704 27.48 km Processing centres 34 4,100 Storage facilities 12 1,511 Marketing centres 18 3,467 Community farms 11 1,724 Livestock sheds 227 649 Other

34 146 9,528

Agriculture 284 Fisheries 13 Animal husbandry 241 Other

35 86

Owner driven 413 Contractor driven 211

# of social infrastructure facilities constructed /

385 # of families Community halls 45 6,449

34

Sales outlets of MPCSs, culverts, causeways, green houses, cement block units, overhead water tanks, fencing, installation of sprinkler systems for school gardens, farm fences, and vocational training centres. 35

Small scale businesses such as service providers and vendors.

27

renovated in an environmentally friendly manner

Common wells 56 1,113 Playgrounds 18 4,769 Other

36 266 6,559

Owner driven 297 Contractor driven 88

# of paid labour days created through construction work

72,715

# of beneficiaries in target communities trained in infrastructure construction and maintenance

608

Male

470

Female

138

Construction 466 Maintenance 493 ≤35 247 >35 361 FO 194 WO 86 Other

37 328

# of beneficiaries in target communities that participated in cash- / food for work

1,848

Male 1,025 Female 823 ≤35 603 >35 1,245 Cash 1,665 Food 183

# of families benefiting from improved livelihood / social infrastructure facilities (# people= # families x 4)

57,531 # of people 230,124

% of social infrastructure facilities constructed / renovated in an environmentally friendly manner, functional 1 year after handover

52%

# of social infrastruct

ure constructe

d / renovated

# of social infrastructure

functional %

Community halls 45 23 51% Common wells 56 41 73% Play grounds 18 17 94% Other

38 266 120 45%

Owner driven 297 147 49% Contractor driven 88 54 61%

% of CBOs involved in maintenance of social infrastructure, 6 month after handover 90%

# of CBOs trained

# of CBOs involved in maintenance, 6

months after handover

%

FO 28 25 89% WO 37 33 89% Other

39 66 60 91%

% of CBOs involved in social infrastructure construction, 1 month post training

83%

# of CBOs trained

# of CBOs involved in construction 1

month post training

%

FO 27 24 89% WO 34 29 85%

36

Pre-school building, computer unit, MPCS building, community health centres, classrooms for children with special needs, school playing area, sports, leisure, and recreational centre, children’s park, school water and electricity supply, teachers’ quarters, solar street lamps, toilets, cardiology lamp, fencing for RDS, and storage buildings. 37

Various other CBOs and producer organizations, such as RDSs and fisheries organizations. 38Buildings such as libraries, multi-purpose halls and vocational training centres. 39

Various other CBOs and producer organizations, such as RDSs and fisheries organizations.

28

Beneficiary fisherman who has improved access to the sea

Fisherman were forced to sell their catch on the open ground

Other40

60 48 80%

Case Study: Improving Fisheries Infrastructure through the Renovation of an Auction Centre, Chempiyanpattu North and Mamunai villages, Jaffna Maruthankerny DS Division (officially known as Vadamaradchy East DS Division), Jaffna, which includes Chempiyanpattu North GN Division (Chempiyanpattu North and Mamunai villages) was affected by the war and the Tsunami leaving people vulnerable and unable to access their primary source of livelihoods – fisheries. The population was displaced three times in 1996, 2000 and 2006 to the Vanni region and resettlement after the last wave of displacement started in September 2010. Being connected to the Bay of Bengal, the main source of income in Chempiyanpattu North GN Division is fishing, where the fishermen were involved in deep sea fishing until they lost all their equipment as a result of the Tsunami. Equipment was restored to an extent through Tsunami assistance but was lost or damaged again during war. Funding from UNDP’s Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR-North) and the Government of Norway (JRP II) supported more than 90 families with a range of livelihood equipment such as catamarans, fishing nets as well as outboard motor (OBM) and fiberglass refined plastic (FRP) boats. “We lost our fishing gear which we acquired after the Tsunami during the final displacement in August 2006. When we were suffering without any livelihood implements, UNDP not only supported us with OBM and FRP boats as well as fishing nets but also with the renovation of two auction centers at Mamunai and Chempiyanpattu North villages,” said Mr.K.Vethanayagam, President of Chempiyanpattu North Fisheries Cooperative Society (FCS). Prioritizied as most important infrastructural need by the villagers, UNDP supported the renovation of two auction centres in Chempiyanpattu North and Mamunai villages, which is managed by the FCSs of each village. They were already constructed by UNDP

40

Various other CBOs and producer organizations, such as RDSs and fisheries organizations.

29

in 2006 but were damaged in the same year due to the new outbreak of the war. The centres attempt to meet the need of the communities in terms of creating space for fishermen to sell their catch. Once handed over to the FCSs the centres are expected to directly benefit 68 members of 115 active members who are engaging in fishing in Chempiyanpattu North Fishermen’s Cooperative Society and 158 active members of the 258-member Cooperative Society in Mamunai village also engaging in fishing. “Fishermen from the villages of Mamunai and Chempiyanpatru North will benefit from the auction centres. On average, one fisherman catches about 10kg – 20kg of fish daily, except on Fridays and Sundays. 1kg of fish is auctioned for Rs.200-350 and the FCSs collect Rs.3 per auctioned kilo of fish from the fishermen as income and is deposited in the FCS bank account [to be used for the cooperative functions]. Fish is purchased daily by vendors who have their own coolers, local fish vendors and market fish vendors during auctioning hours”, said Mr.V.Srishankar, President of Mamunai FCS. As Mrs. N.Jesima, Secretary of Chempiyanpatru North FCS explains, “after resettlement we were facing difficulties in conducting auctioning activities without a building. Using the ground instead, especially during the rainy season, caused a lot of problems. So we are happy that UNDP has renovated the auction centre building”.

5. Targeted communities assisted to establish equitable and inclusive community networks and advocate community needs

TRP mainstreamed social transformation and cohesion into its livelihood, infrastructure and housing interventions, as well as undertook stand-alone social transformation and cohesion interventions. This approach was premised on the understanding that while social transformation processes are important, it cannot be introduced in a vacuum and must take into account the specific context, needs and capacities of individual communities. The results of this component are as follows:

TRP used its livelihood, infrastructure and housing interventions as a vehicle to mobilize and empower communities as well as to ease tensions and help bridge ethnic, language, caste, religious, cultural and other divides. Direct livelihood and infrastructure support increased the availability of local resources and income opportunities thereby contributing to mitigating some of the causes of tensions and disputes arising at a community level. In addition, capacity building trainings and exposure visits focused on improved livelihood practices and technologies also served as entry points to increase interaction, exchange and mutual understanding among diverse communities within and across districts.41

Working with CBOs as implementing partners and recipient institutions has been integral to implementing activities for recovery and development at the village level. Most of TRP’s activities were implemented together with CBOs, in some instances

41

Further information and examples have been provided in the Cumulative Results Sections 1.1 – 1.4 relating to Livelihood opportunities; Small and micro-enterprise development support; Community-focused housing and Basic infrastructure pillars.

30

facilitating their re-organization/revival. 328 CBOs, 23% of which were women’s CBOs, received training and guidance on institutional governance arrangements as well as administrative and accountability practices, which improved their capacities to undertake community activities and provide services to members. 72%

Along with the trainings, 295 CBOs, 40% of which are women’s CBOs, as well as farmer, livestock and fisheries organizations, received grants to carry out recovery and development activities on behalf of their communities. This contributed to increasing ownership of interventions, and served as an opportunity to strengthen the management and institutional capacities of CBOs so that they are better able to carry-out development services on behalf of their members – even beyond the lifespan of the UNDP intervention.

CBO trainings and exchanges enhanced the capacity of communities to address and resolve local disputes, adopt community-based disaster risk reduction practices, and advocate for their needs with government service providers.

TRP has also supported CBOs to form village and divisional level CBO forums42 that bring them together. The CBO forums have been a key platform for CBOs to collectively decide, plan and carry out social transformation and cohesion initiatives. The village level forums have enabled the utilization of different organizational mandates and skills to undertake collective action such as rehabilitation of school buildings, campaigns to counter social issues such as alcoholism, gender violence and child abuse. The divisional level forums have enabled CBO representatives across villages to come together to primarily advocate for needs and discuss issues with government actors. For instance, CSO forum in Majeedpuram, Ampara negotiated with the Zonal Education Department to retain trainee teachers in the village; greater local government presence (such as Rural Development Officer, Samurdhi Officer and Grama Niladhari representing the Divisional Secretariats Office) at monthly meetings of the CSO Forums in Ampara, Jaffna, and Vavuniya providing inputs to issues raised and guidance towards resolving them; and supporting service provision including a mobile clinic to provide legal documents in Vavuniya and Jaffna (to returnees from India) and in Polonnaruwa. The divisional forums – some of which were registered with the Divisional Secretary and others which are functioning more informally have strengthened CBO acceptance and/or interaction with local state actors. Others such as school principals, midwives, agricultural extension officers and irrigation engineers have been involved depending on the type of issues being raised.

TRP has increasingly recognized youth as important agents of change in a post-war context. Therefore a range of livelihood and social activities have been designed and implemented that have created platforms for bringing youth together, facilitated inclusion, provided alternative livelihood opportunities and empowered them as agents of change. For instance, improving English language capacities through training in partnership with the British Council, has reached 210 youth across 5 districts located in the North, North Central and Eastern regions. This engagement has provided opportunities for increased interaction amongst these youth as well as confidence to communicate with other youth from different communities, where previously the lack of exposure to the “other” as well as communication problems hampered interaction. The

42

Under the AusAID funded Communities for Progress Project, 18 CBO forums have been initiated in the 5 districts of Ampara, Polonnaruwa, Anuradhapura, Vavuniya and Jaffna.

31

English language training also increased their employability in the labour market, where for instance some youth who were part of the programme were selected and received training in the hospitality sector resulting in certification and internship placements with a leading hotel chain in Sri Lanka.

Other activities that have engaged younger groups include the school twinning programme and the peer mediation groups which have been carried out as complementary interventions. The Twinning School Programme has paired 21 schools (including over 210 children between the ages of 14-15 years; 21 school principals, 42 teachers; and at least 42 parents) from 10 DS Divisions across 5 districts.43 The school exchange visits, including discussions, cultural events, home visits and group-based interactions, enabled participants (visiting and hosting teams) to gain a better understanding of the culture and environment of the “other.” The exchanges brought together communities, which otherwise would have been unlikely to have met, due to various divides such as language, ethnicity, culture, religion, location and/or economic circumstances. The exchanges have resulted in facilitating mutual understanding, tolerance and reconciliation between these communities, and have led to friendships being formed across district borders. The peer mediation groups have provided a space for children to address disputes amongst peers. The intervention has led to 17 schools adopting peer mediation practices and techniques (27 principals and teachers, and 105 students). This has resulted in there being a greater openness to a system of conflict resolution and opportunities to resolve tensions amongst peers in these schools, as well as improved leadership, communications and relationship-building skills amongst students.

Please refer the table below for detailed results.

Indicator Overall

indicator values

Disaggregated data Column 1

Result Disaggregated data

Column 2

Result

# of ST initiatives carried out in target communities by community / CBO / groups

527

Exchange visits 74 Twinning programmes

112

Social or cultural events

105 Sports events 31

Other 44

205

Ratio of women to men in target communities consulted in PNAs / rapid assessments

116/100

Male

7,679

Female

8,935

≤35 8,984 >35 7,630

FO 2,081 WO 5,939

Other45

8,594

# of UNDP staff and

630 Male

314

Female

316

43

Ampara, Polonnaruwa, Anuradhapura, Vavuniya and Jaffna districts, which are located in the North, North Central and Eastern Provinces. 44

Formation of WRDS, self-help groups and credit societies; alcohol and drug abuse awareness; initiation of monthly progress meetings with stakeholders; inter-community dialogue programmes; coaching and training camps; and leadership programmes. 45

Various other CBOs and producer organizations, such as RDSs and fisheries organizations.

32

Peer Mediation team at the school

partners trained on social transformation & conflict sensitivity

≤35 421 >35 209

Government 19 CBOs 441

Community mobilizers

74 UNDP staff 91

# of CBOs in target communities trained on administrative and accountability practices

328

FO

30

WO

75

Other46

223

% of women’s CBOs to total number of CBOs in target communities served as grant recipients

40%

Women’s CBOs

119

Total # of CBOs working

295

% of CBOs in target communities having adopted administrative and accountability practices, 6 months post training

72%

# CBOs trained

# CBOs adopted best practices

FO 30 23

WO 75 60

Other47

223 153

Problem Solving Amongst Peers, Ampara

Majeedpuram Vidyalayam is a Tamil medium school situated in the Malwatha-3 GN Division, Sammanthurai DS Division. It is attended by 313 Muslim students from Majeedpuram and managed by 19 teachers. Villagers from Majeedpuram were displaced in 1989 and 1990 due to the war and returned for resettlement in 1994. Currently the village is home to 308 Muslim and 18 Sinhala families. Due to limited livelihood opportunities many people have left the village as semi-skilled migrant workers, which has in turn created many social problems, especially

relating to the caring of children. The Communities for Progress Project (C4P II) supported by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) set up a Peer Mediation Group (PMG) in the school. This group comprises students who are trained to provide support to other students to resolve problems, conflicts or disputes they may encounter.

46

Various other CBOs and producer organizations, such as RDSs and fisheries organizations. 47

Various other CBOs and producer organizations, such as RDSs and fisheries organizations.

33

Mr. M.L.M. Zahir is the Counselor and teacher-in-charge of this PMG. He initially received training on basic concepts of peer mediation, criteria for selection of peer mediators, conflict resolution mechanisms, methodology to conduct a peer mediation session and sustainability of the initiation. Subsequently, two additional teachers from the school underwent this training. Mr. Zahir conducted an awareness programme on the peer mediation process placing emphasis on the concepts, qualities and activities to students from Grades 8-11. Although the initial reactions were not positive, 50 students applied out of which 14 were selected as peer mediators. The selected group, consisting of five boys and nine girls from Grades 9, 10, and 11, participated in a two-day training programme that included role plays, practical sessions, and discussions on engaging in mediation. Additionally, a peer mediation room was set up and a box to collect complaints was put in place in the school. These complaint forms are evaluated by a selection of the PMG and the relevant student or group facing the problem is invited to a sitting. For Favas, a grade 10 student and member of the PMG, and his peers the experience has increased confidence to engage with one another, work together in a non-threatening environment and deal with difficulties faced as a student in school in a result oriented manner. “At first I had no knowledge of dealing with such problems. Then, through the programme, I learnt how to address a problem and how to work towards solving it. Now, it is good that we can work among students to solve our problems. In a friendly manner we can solve all differences without involving adults.” For some students the intervention has improved their overall experience of school, stressing the importance of the school environment being a place where children are free to be themselves. Anees, a grade 10 student and member of the PMG, noted “We are able to manage many situations in school and it has made us feel better about being in school. If this work can be extended to the entire village, it will be very helpful. I hope such a forum is established in the village to solve our problems.” In addition the group has found informal ways of passing on this experience to others by training their peers in class. Despite the progress and encouragement, there are certain challenges for the PMG. The Group has found it difficult to ensure that trained teachers continue to work in the school. A teacher who was trained as a part of this process subsequently left the school, which created difficulties to take project activities forward. In response however, the school management negotiated with the Zonal Director of Education and ensured the continuation of Mr. Zahir services. As a result of his commitment and efforts, peer mediation has progressed satisfactorily, resulting in supporting a strong and confident younger generation in the village of Majeedpuram.

34

Improving connectivity

Case study: Improving Livelihoods in Kalmunthanveli, Batticaloa through CBO Strengthening

With their agricultural lands and equipment destroyed during the war, resettled villagers in the Kalmunthanveli GN Division, Vellaveli DS Division in Batticaloa district were faced with the daunting task of having to re-establish their livelihoods. Damage to much of the community infrastructure in the village further restricted mobility and access to livelihoods. The support extended under the European Union funded Community Recovery Project (EU-CRP) followed an integrated approach focusing on the

rehabilitation of irrigation systems and related structures, improving internal access road, and supporting farmers to enhance productivity. Paddy farming, highland crop cultivation, home gardening, and livestock rearing are the predominant seasonal income generation activities in this village, which due to its isolated location negatively impacts the availability of public services and a majority still live in temporary housing with restricted access to drinking water, especially during the dry season. Many CBOs were inactive as a result of the war. In order to revive the CBO landscape and thereby improve the livelihood of its members, UNDP provided several supportive measures such as the provision of loans, facilitation of private sector partnership and capacity development training. Accordingly the project supported the Vikneshweara Farmer Organization (FO) through the provision of Rs.1,750,000 and Rs.2,000,000 in 2010 and 2011 respectively to the FO as part of a revolving loan fund has enabled farmers who are part of the organization to restart paddy cultivation and fulfill their start up costs. As at 2012, the CBO had recovered 60% of its second loan disbursement and was in the process of providing loans within a third cycle to eligible clients. Three of the best performing borrowers for repayment, all women, were recognized for their effort. In order to ensure sustainability and enhance the CBO’s network of relevant service providers, UNDP also took steps to facilitate linkages with private sector companies and other UN agencies. For example, farmers engaged in corn production were linked with Prima, who expressed interest in purchasing corn products from the villagers. “Since the representatives came to our village and purchased the products, we did not face difficulties in transporting products to the market. This helped us avoid post harvest losses as we could sell the entire produce at once” President of the Rural Development Society (RDS). Moreover, ties were established with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), to help farmers obtain the necessary equipment and resources to carry out their work.

35

6. Communities supported to introduce environmental-friendly livelihood practices/technology and ensure basic infrastructure adheres to environmental standards

In addition to the damaging effects of the war, the current over-extraction of resources, due to amongst other reasons, the post-war reconstruction effort and the rise in poverty-induced coping mechanisms, will likely have significant consequences on the availability of natural resources, many of which are essential for the restoration of traditional livelihoods and their long-term sustainability. TRP has promoted natural resource management and environmentally-friendly livelihood and construction practices through a range of activities that have been carried out as stand-alone interventions, as well as mainstreamed into livelihood and infrastructure interventions. The financial investment in this Pillar during the Programme cycle has been relatively small, given more pressing priorities such as livelihoods, housing and infrastructure which were identified through the Rural Needs Assessments (RNA)/Participatory Needs Assessments (PNA)/ and Participatory Context and Needs Assessments (PCNAs) and market analysis processes during the early recovery to recovery and development phases respectively. The results of this component are as follows:

Activities undertaken by TRP have contributed to improving water-sanitation practices, water conservation and solid waste disposal on the part of community members and schools respectively. For instance, providing water-sanitation facilities to households in selected areas in Polonnaruwa and Trincomalee involved awareness sessions to improve the use and maintenance of toilets, introduction of waste collection and separation methods, the establishment of composting yards, and tree planting. The awareness sessions also focused on improving the quality of water sources and providing water for domestic use. The Mangroves restoration project in Mannar was implemented by the Coast Conservation Department, with the participation of school children in the planting sessions. The plastic recycling initiative in Vavuniya included the active participation of school children for collection of plastic as well as to ensure the sustainability of the message that was being delivered through the project.

TRP also attempted to address environmental issues by linking communities to duly mandated institutions in order to strengthen their respective capacities to demand and provide services. For instance, the Central Environmental Authority in Ampara was facilitated to provide training for CBO members (WRDS in Manikkamadu and Kudivil and RDS in Kudivil in the Irakkamam DS Division) on environmentally-friendly practices48; and environmental and health awareness sessions were conducted in cooperation with the Public Health Inspector in Trincomalee.

A bio-gas unit in a school in Thirunelvelu village in Jaffna district is an example of specific interventions on environmental management. The unit is used to cook food under the Food for Education Programme implemented by the World Food Programme in partnership with the Ministry of Education. Kitchen waste from the school and a nearby children’s home, cow dung from the village and vegetable waste from the main market in Thirunelvelu ensures a continuous supply of material for the generation of bio-gas.

48

Such as soil conservation, legal aspects of deforestation and tree cutting.

36

Please refer the table below for detailed results.

Indicator Overall

indicator values

Disaggregated data Column 1

Result Disaggregated data Column 2

Result

# of beneficiaries in target communities trained in environmentally friendly practices

3,227

Male Female

Reforestation 1,283 1,249

Waste management 248 380

Other 38 29

≤35 2,257 >35 970

# of environmental awareness campaigns

49

conducted in target communities

31

Waste management 7

Reforestation 3

Other50

21

# of community based environmental management initiatives

51

conducted in target communities

39

Waste management 5

Reforestation 3

Other52

31

% of trained beneficiaries in target communities adopting environmentally friendly practices, 6 months post training

74%

# of people trained

# of people adapted best

practices

Reforestation 2,532 2,381

Waste management 628 0

Other 67 0

Male 1,569 1,200

Female 1,658 1,181

≤35 2,257 1,500

>35 970 881

49

As per TRPs Results Framework it involves activities that improve awareness to promote environmentally friendly practices such as soil conservation and management, water resource management, waste management, reforestation and watershed management etc. 50

Hygiene promotion, awareness programmes, visibility boards, wall painting, art competitions on dengue prevention, human-elephant conflict and environmental protection. 51

As per TRPs Results Framework involves activities that help in the conservation of natural resources and promote environmentally friendly practices with the participation of the community members. Initiatives include soil conservation for highland crop cultivation, promotion of composting and use of organic manure to improve quality of soil, watershed conservation and management activities, reforestation activities, water resources maintenance and management activities, promotion of community level waste management, etc. 52

Such as shramadana/cleaning programme/ hand-bills distribution/ wall painting/ art competitions on dengue prevention and environmental protection; introduction of new technology on watershed management, sanitary health and hygienic practices programme, provision of fencing units.

37

Collected plastic that has been sorted by colour

Crushed plastic washed and dried

Plastic being crushed

Case Study: Plastic Recycling Centre, Vavuniya Urban Council With the support from UNDP’s Bureau for Crisis Recovery (BCPR), a Plastic Recycling Centre

was set up at the Solid Waste Management Centre compound in Vepankulam, Vavuniya Urban Council (UC) area. The Centre aims to promote the protection of the environment by creating critical behavioural changes among members of the community, particularly school children and adults. Using recycling plastic as a point of entry to introduce safe disposal of solid waste, this

intervention sought to address the

growing incidence of dengue in the UC area and improve the urban environment. A member of the UC noted that “Putting away even a small plastic lid which serves as a potential breeding ground for dengue mosquitoes can make a difference and these children have helped to make that difference”. The Centre is managed by the UC which undertook a round of collection by organizing a competition among students from eleven schools in Vavuniya. In support of this event, UNDP provided promotional materials to students, conducted plastic awareness campaigns and transported a plastic crushing machine donated by the Central Environment Authority, from Manik Farm IDP camp to the PRC. This competition resulted in the collection of over 15,000kg of plastic waste, which was handed over to the UC to be crushed and prepared for recycling. Students were rewarded with bags, caps, pens, mathematical sets, t-shirts and exercise books for the

plastic waste collected. Students who collected over 30kg of plastic were also awarded a certificate of participation and the three students who collected the most were gifted bicycles. UNDP also facilitated a private-public partnership between the UC and a private firm to undertake and sustain the recycling. The collection competition is planned to take place once a year but given the success of the event, the UC hopes to conduct it bi-annually, to also help prevent preventing water stagnation during the rainy season.

This intervention has encouraged the participation of children in protecting the environment. As explained by the Environmental Commissioner “this programme has created environmental awareness among our children. Such projects should also be implemented in other local government areas in the district”.

38

Furthermore the UNDP Head of Field Office for Vavuniya notes, “the project has an obvious financial benefit but the change it has created in both the environmental and social context cannot be measured with money. It is priceless.” However, there is more to be done. The intervention has faced challenges in maintaining a proper collection network, obtaining adequate storage for collected plastic, creating awareness at the household level and ensuring that children have sufficient time to engage in collection. These challenges will be addressed in the next round of the competition in late 2012.

3. Challenges and Lessons Learnt

Whilst UNDP has been working with CBOs and cooperatives, thorough assessment is needed about what structure is appropriate for different tasks. The ethos and form of competitive enterprises for local economic development may need to be very different from that of an advocacy or service delivery organization. In some cases a community-owned or social enterprise may be ideal, whilst in others a producer shareholding or other models of private or shared ownership enterprise may be appropriate. In still other cases, producer organizations may help level the playing field for autonomous small-scale producer–private sector interaction. Moving forward and funding timelines permitting, there is a need to advocate and support appropriate legal structures for POs, which will be critical to enhance their potential to develop into viable enterprises as well as to contribute to local economic development.

Scaled-up engagement with private sector companies cannot be limited to those meeting ethical criteria and/or those operating in niche or premium ‘fair trade’ national or global markets. The overlapping, commercially-driven interests of both companies and small-sale producers (producers need buyers, companies need suppliers) need to be identified, and producers empowered to negotiate under these conditions.

There is increased government and donor demand for organizations with grassroots delivery capacity for agriculture sector development. This is an opportunity for POs, but there is a danger that successful yet fragile POs will be overloaded and weakened. It is important to capacitate these POs to respond to this increased demand by ensuring they are equipped to negotiate with different funders, and funders in turn need to be aware of the danger of donor-driven over-extension.

There is a need to strengthen horizontal integration for planning, coordination and exchange of lessons learnt with other agencies and stakeholders working in the same geographical areas and sectors in order to achieve greater coherence among interventions implemented by development practitioners.

Providing scaled-up agricultural services is not a role for UNDP but promoting models for high quality, sustainable, affordable and inclusive services to be provided is. Some of the key issues are: (a) what are the most appropriate delivery mechanisms to keep transaction costs low, to be inclusive and to be responsive to producer demands?; (b) what (if anything) should be subsidized and what should not?; (c) how do we ensure that pilot projects that include service provision, do promote scalable models of provision

39

rather than unsustainable ‘gap-filling’?; and (d) are producer organizations more effective as independent advocates for better services or as agents of service delivery?

Social transformation interventions are necessary at the micro level as much as it is at the macro level, if social cohesion is to be realized and sustained in a post-war context. Hence, support to interventions that focus on grassroots level social cohesion work as well as mainstreaming social cohesion interventions into “bricks and mortar” projects is essential. These micro level interventions and concepts also need to be institutionalized with government and non-government stakeholders for longer-term sustainability.

When scaling-up local economic development interventions, conflict-sensitive, gender-sensitive approaches should be embedded into tools such as market assessments and analysis in order to ensure the inclusion of poorer and marginalized communities.

Policy reforms in relation to the agriculture sector are required in order to facilitate sustainable development. More analysis of the sector and local context is needed to building understanding of the implications of existing policies and practices. Broader issues such as regulatory systems, land entitlements, business registration, taxation and access to business development and financial services all play a significant role in agriculture markets. UNDP has an important role to play in building the confidence and trust of local producers and their organizations to establish linkages with the government and private sector and vice versa.