Study of the impact of the work of FORUT in Sri Lanka: Building Civil Society

Background

This report from Sri Lanka is part of a study commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in December 2002. The study examines how Norwegian NGOs contribute to strengthening civil society in developing countries and assesses the wider impact and the "value added" of their work, in particular with regard to poverty reduction, expansion of democracy and increased respect for human rights. Two Norwegian NGOs and two countries were selected for the study; Save the Children Norway in Ethiopia and FORUT in Sri Lanka.

NB! This is strictly speaking not an evaluation, but a study.

Purpose/objective

The Terms of Reference require that this study assess the impact of the activities of FORUT in Sri Lanka, including:
• an assessment of the capacity building of FORUT in relation to its Sri Lankan partners, and of how FORUT and its partners contribute towards building civil society in Sri Lanka
• an assessment of the impact of the work of FORUT and its partners particularly in relation to poverty reduction, democratisation and human rights, which are referred to in the Norwegian guidelines for financial support to NGOs.

Methodology

The Sri Lanka study was designed as an in-depth study of FORUT and its partners in two districts, the war affected Vavuniya district in the North and the politically turbulent Hambantota district in the South. A mix of methodologies was employed for the study: participatory workshops, a survey of FORUT's partners and in-depth studies of selected partners. Field work was carried out between December 2002 and November 2003.

Key findings

• The importance of context: The study stresses the importance of contextual factors - national as well as the local - for assessing impact.
• Strengthening civil society: FORUT's approach and activities represent an effort to strengthen civil society in the rural areas from a "grassroots" perspective, and has contributed to increased interaction and trust and a feeling of unity among members. These relationships are also strategically useful for the effective management of savings and credit programmes in the villages. FORUT-supported CBOs offer an additional arena for collective action in the villages, which in turn has contributed to increased social cohesion and unity, as well as a more pleasant village environment. FORUT-supported CBOs have become part of a wider network of village organisations. In the conflict-affected areas, CBOs provide arenas for people to come together, rebuild lost relationships and regain mutual trust and confidence. CBO members have a strong allegiance to their self-help groups and CBOs. However, organisational networks that go beyond the village level are weak.
• Capacity building: FORUT's interventions in both Vavuniya and Hambantota have laid the foundation for building CSOs in local communities. FORUT has also provided training to build awareness and the capacities of CBO members and their leaders. Yet, the current approach is inadequate in terms of achieving FORUT's ambitious policy objectives.
• Poverty reduction: The combined impact of FORUT's interventions has been to reduce poverty among members of FORUT's partner organisations. FORUT and its partners have been able to reach poor, remote and marginalised communities. Despite the fact that FORUT has provided these communities with a number of services, there are few examples of FORUT having provided them with links to institutions of economic and political power.
• Democratisation and good governance: The CBOs have not contributed to significant changes in the relationship between village communities and local governance institutions. Interactions between FORUT's partners and institutions of administrative and political power have been conducted through traditional modes of interaction. Requests made by CBOs have been for resources for the villages. Nevertheless, the hand of some village communities has been strengthened by some successful CBOs. FORUT and its partners have contributed to improved coverage in the provision of services and the adoption of new practices by state institutions. Under-funded government agencies have provided technical expertise, FORUT has contributed funding, and FORUT's partners have conducted needs assessments and mobilised people to participate in community development projects.

Recommendations

There are no concrete recommendations in this study.

Comments from the organisation

• Operationalisation of policy objectives: Project objectives are derived partially from the local context and local needs, partially from FORUT's overall policy objectives and partially from donor policies. Obviously, FORUT cannot simultaneously satisfy all Norwegian ODA policy objectives, and this is even less possible for a single development programme.
• From Theory of Change to Agents of Change: The study seems to rest on an implicit theory that change is only brought about as a result of advocacy and mobilisation. We believe that this implicit change theory needs to be tested in light of the context of the conflict in Sri Lanka, which greatly reduces the space for advocacy and mass mobilisation because the local population is reluctant to promote controversial political agendas due to its implications for personal security. To approach advocacy and mobilisation with great care might in the long run achieve better results than a more provocative approach that might endanger both our service delivery and the security of local staff and partners. In a context of high levels of conflict we believe that social change can best be achieved through a combination of service delivery, advocacy and mobilisation, where conflict sensitivity defines the extent to which advocacy and mobilisation can be promoted without endangering the delivery of much needed services. Hence, we must choose between a rights-based (advocacy) and a needs-based (service) approach, but rather attempt to find the optimal combination of the two.
• Sandwiched between donor and recipient expectations: FORUT experiences this in our everyday work, and we find the NIBR sandwich model to be a great help both in increasing our own understanding of the phenomenon, and in explaining to donors and recipients why it may be impossible to fulfil all expectations simultaneously.
• Generalising from the particular: NIBR has studied two of FORUT's projects in Sri Lanka, being responsible for 10-15 % of our total Sri Lanka budget. Where the NIBR study has perhaps somewhat uncritically generalised its findings, FORUT must take great care to separate those findings that may be relevant to the other projects in Sri Lanka from those findings that are particular to the two projects being the object of the NIBR study.
• The content and pedagogy of capacity-building through training: FORUT's Sri Lanka strategy concurs with the NIBR report in pointing to the need for giving higher priority to capacity-building on alliance-building, networking and achieving political change at the meso level. The design of our training programmes to achieve this must take into account the local context of protracted conflict and the limited political space for operational field-based organisations caused by this. Otherwise, overambitious advocacy and mobilisation efforts might easily jeopardise our service delivery to the neediest.