2. LIFT Village Organization Study: Findings and Implications 24 February 2016

3. Introduction to the Village Organization Study

4. General objectives of the study To understand the approaches used by LIFT IPs to mobilize/support VOs for village development To better understand how to promote pro-poor, effective and sustainable VOs To develop recommendations/lessons to guide similar programmes implemented with support of VOs

5. Study methodology Study selected 50 villages from the 3,820 where IPs had been working (Delta 2 and Countrywide programmes) Objective of sampling to ensure a good range of IP projects and still provide some randomness in selection of villages and IP projects 19 different LIFT IPs represented within the 50 village sample 22 projects represented in the sample Field research used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods

6. Types of VOs represented in the 50 villages Village Development Committees (VDC)/and sub- committees Farmer Field Schools (FFS)/farmer extension groups Groups administering revolving funds in kind Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLA)/Self Help Groups (SHG)/Self Reliance Groups (SRG) that provide cash loans to members Groups set up to manage cash-for-work (CfW) activities Rice bank and seed bank groups, and one Forestry group

7. Findings and Implications

8. General conclusions LIFT has made a significant impact on village social and organizational landscapes Generally the IP projects determined VO goals and objectives, and often the target members/beneficiaries IPs also assisted with operational procedures, record keeping etc Generally VOs have been formed quickly – essential to implement short-duration LIFT projects (IPs covered many villages, with few staff and tight seasonal windows) Yet VOs are widely appreciated, and have been successful in implementing a large range of IP activities that lead to livelihoods improvements

9. VO establishment approaches in LIFT Different IP projects have invested differently in social capital formation and VO strengthening Most have needed to be very directive/prescriptive in establishing VOs across their many villages Many VOs despite being new had received minimal capacity development support Most wanted (more) training in financial management Many lacked clear rules and regulations Few had clear plans for beyond the LIFT project

10. Are VOs representative of women and the poor? Only 31% of VO members were women IP projects state their support for the poor and vulnerable, but many VOs did not represent these groups

11. Impacts of VO activities on the wider community Often a specific VO was part of a wider IP project supporting the whole community Many VOs were targeted at a specific subgroup Success of a VO however was often judged by how it supported the wider population While farmer VOs were the least equitable, several of these addressed this issue by contributing to a village development fund or to construction of village infrastructure

12. VO self-determination and sustainability Difficult to predict sustainability, many factors Reliance on technical advice was more common (particularly for farmer groups) Most VO self assessments indicated need for organizational strengthening in several areas (eg planning, budgeting, financial management, leadership, M&E) Many VOs lacked clear plans (or vision/goals/objectives) for beyond IP projects VOs that had contributed to wider community development reported a strong commitment to continuing their activities post LIFT support

13. Transparency and accountability Nearly all VOs no issues of transparency, accountability or conflicts reported by either members or non-members Member selection processes were generally considered fair VOs generally accountable to their members and the wider community While new VOs were granted important powers to allocate resources, target beneficiaries and mediate benefits, there were no issues reported of conflicts with other leaders or power structures – this does not mean there were no ramifications on the social fabric and political economy of the communities concerned

14. Thank You