UPPR Annual Report 2009 by Tareq Salahuddin

Preface This is the Second Annual Report of the Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction Project. It covers the key features and the major achievements of the project in 2009, reports on the status of the project at the end of 2009, and describes risks and way forward in 2010. I hope this report will enable the reader to have an overview of the Project, its approach, achievements and, most importantly, potential. We are all very proud of the progress we have made toward achieving the key outputs. In a project as ambitious and as complex as ours, it is inevitable that some of our activities will be on target while some will be lagging behind. Nevertheless, I believe that overall we are now going in the right direction to achieve the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purpose, and to establish a sustainable approach to urban poverty reduction that can continue after the end of external assistance in 2015. I take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to the staff of DFID in Bangladesh, UNDP Bangladesh, Local Government Engineering Department, our project Headquarters and our project town teams in our twenty-three towns for your commitment and hard work over the past year. Most specifically, let me congratulate and thank the communities with whom we have worked and without whose energy and drive none of this would have been possible.

Ali Ahmed National Project Director Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction Project

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Table of Contents Preface .............................................................................................................................................................................. Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................................. Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... Background and Introduction .................................................................................................................................. Development Context ............................................................................................................................................ Project Description .................................................................................................................................................. Output 1: Mobilised communities .......................................................................................................................... Description of Output ........................................................................................................................................... Settlement and Land Mapping .............................................................................................................................. Selection of New Settlements ............................................................................................................................... Homeless People Mapping .................................................................................................................................... Primary Group Formation ..................................................................................................................................... Saving and Credit Groups ...................................................................................................................................... Community Development Committees ............................................................................................................... Clusters and Federations ........................................................................................................................................ Community Action Plans ....................................................................................................................................... Well-Being Assessment (WBA) ............................................................................................................................. Household-member census ................................................................................................................................... Household census ................................................................................................................................................... Output 2: Healthy and secure living environments ........................................................................................... Description of Output ........................................................................................................................................... Status of settlement improvement activities approved in 2008 ....................................................................... Settlement improvement activities in 2009 .......................................................................................................... Innovations in 2009 ................................................................................................................................................. Output 3: Increased incomes and assets ................................................................................................................ Description of Output ............................................................................................................................................ Socio-Economic Activities in 2009 ........................................................................................................................ Urban Food Production .......................................................................................................................................... Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening .............................................................................................. Innovations in 2009 .................................................................................................................................................. Output 4: Pro-poor national and local level policies and practices ................................................................. National Level Policy Influencing ........................................................................................................................... Local-level Policy-influencing .................................................................................................................................. National-level Partnerships ...................................................................................................................................... Local Partnerships ..................................................................................................................................................... Communications ....................................................................................................................................................... Output 5: Project Management ................................................................................................................................. Planning ..................................................................................................................................................................... Management Meetings ............................................................................................................................................. Planning and Staff Professional Development Workshops ............................................................................... Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................................. Field Visits .................................................................................................................................................................. Management Information Systems ......................................................................................................................... UNHABITAT Field Missions ................................................................................................................................. Management Review ................................................................................................................................................. Human Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... Budget and Delivery by Major Outputs ................................................................................................................. Risks and Future Plans .................................................................................................................................................. Risks and Challenges .................................................................................................................................................. Future Plans .................................................................................................................................................................

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

1 4 5 8 8 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 21 21 23 23 25 26 29 29 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 33 35 35 35

List of Tables Table 3-1: Table 3-2: Table 3-3: Table 4-1: Table 4-2: Table 4-3: Table 4-4: Table 5-1: Table 5-2: Table 7-1: Table 7-2: Table 7-3: Table 7-4: Table 7-5:

CDC leadership by poverty status (%) .................................................................................................... CDC leadership by vulnerability category (%) ....................................................................................... Well-Being Assessment in New CDCs in 16 towns .............................................................................. Types of Components and Assets ........................................................................................................... Completion Status of 2008 SEF assets at end of 2009 ........................................................................ Cost of Components in 2009 .................................................................................................................... Number of SIF assets and estimated beneficiaries in 2009 .................................................................. SEF contract delivery for all, old and new CDCs .................................................................................. SEF Programme summary by beneficiaries and costs ........................................................................... UNHABITAT Missions to UPPR ............................................................................................................ Staffing Status ............................................................................................................................................... Formal Capacity Building Events .............................................................................................................. Project Budget Delivery by Output in USD ............................................................................................ Expenditure breakdown per output and per budgetary description ....................................................

13 13 14 16 16 17 17 19 20 32 32 33 33 34

List of Annexes Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex 6: Annex 7: Annex 8: Annex 9: Annex 10: Annex 11: Annex 12: Annex 13: Annex 14: Annex 15: Annex 16: Annex 17: Annex 18: Annex 19: Annex 20: Annex 21: Annex 22: Annex 23: Annex 24: Annex 25: Annex 26: Annex 27: Annex 28: Annex 29: Annex 30: Annex 31: Annex 32:

Town Phasing Plan with Mobilisation Targets .......................................................................................... 40 Overall Status and Progress in 2009 ...................................................................................................... 41 Proposed Project Logframe ................................................................................................................ 44 Analysis of LPUPAP statistics .................................................................................................................... 45 Homeless Person Mapping .......................................................................................................................... 47 Settlement and Land Mapping Method ..................................................................................................... 49 Savings and Credit Groups ........................................................................................................................... 51 The Community Contracting Process ........................................................................................................ 53 Well-Being Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Agro-based Community Resource Survey ................................................................................................ 55 The Female Face of Urban Poverty .......................................................................................................... 56 Well-Being Assessment Results by Town.................................................................................................. 57 Summary of Extreme Poor Strategy ........................................................................................................ 58 Data Reconciliation ..................................................................................................................................... 59 List of MATT-2 PIP relevant to UPPR ................................................................................................... 62 Town-wise Data on SIF Community Contracts ..................................................................................... 63 Town-wise Data on SEF Community Contracts .................................................................................... 66 Location of National Level Partnerships ................................................................................................. 68 Formalised Local Partnerships by Town .................................................................................................. 69 Investing in Youth - the Future ................................................................................................................. 70 Results of Homeless People Mapping in 20 Towns .............................................................................. 71 Training Events and Beneficiaries by Town ............................................................................................ 72 Training by Programme Type and Beneficiary Type .............................................................................. 73 Headquarters Training in 2009 .................................................................................................................... 74 2009 Budget and Expenditure Details ........................................................................................................ 75 Records of HQ Staff Visits to the Field .................................................................................................... 80 Exchange Visits ............................................................................................................................................ 82 Mobilisation in 2009 and Future Mobilisation Plan ............................................................................... 83 List of Procurement 2009 ......................................................................................................................... 84 Town Annual Workplan 2010................................................................................................................... 85 Project Town Staffing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Filled and Vacant Posts ................................................................................. 87 Staffing as of End 2009 ........................................................................................................................... 88

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Abbreviations ADB ADPC CDC CUP CUS DIG EP FAO GoB HDI HH ILO IPM LCG LGD LGED LPUPAP MATT MDG NEX NGO NPD Old CDCs Old Towns PDC PG PIC PRSP PTB PTT SEF SIF SLM TVET UCEP UGIIP UNHCR UPHCP UPPR UWG WATSAN WBA WFP WHO

Asian Development Bank Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre Community Development Committee Coalition for the Urban Poor Centre for Urban Studies Development Innovations Group Extreme Poor Food and Agriculture Organisation Government of Bangladesh Human Development Index Household International Labour Organisation International Project Manager Local Consultative Group Local Government Division Local Government Engineering Department Local Partnerships for Poverty Alleviation Project Managing At The Top Millennium Development Goals National Execution Non-Government Organisation National Project Director CDCs formed under LPUPAP Towns covered by LPUPAP Pavement Dweller Centres Primary Group Project Implementation Committee (at Ward Level) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Project Town Board (at Town Level) Project Town Teams Socio-Economic Fund Settlement Improvement Fund Settlement and Vacant Land Mapping Technical, Vocational and Educational Training Underprivileged Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Educational Programmes Urban Governance and Infrastructure Improvement Project United Nations High Commission for Refugees Urban Primary Health Care Project Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction Urban Working Group Water and Sanitation Wellbeing Assessment World Food Programme World Health Organisation

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Town Abbreviations CTG RAJ KLN BRL KST GPG BGR SRG MMS HBG NRG DHK TNG CML JSR RNP DNP SHT GZP SVR TGL NOG FEN CNP SAT JND FRP SDP PAB NBG

Chittagong Rajshahi Khulna Barishal Kustia Gopalgonj Bogra Sirajgonj Mymensing Hobigonj Narayangonj Dhaka Tongi Comilla Jessor Rangpur Dinajpur Sylhet Gazipur Savar Tangail Naogaon Feni Chandpur Satkhira Jhenaidah Faridpur Saidpur Pabna Chapai Nawabgonj

Executive Summary This executive summary presents the project’s key accomplishments in 2009. Its accomplishments relate to extreme poverty focus, policy-influencing, partnership formation, security of tenure, improving living environments, improving livelihoods, expansion into new towns, community mobilisation, establishing a baseline, communicating, improving the logframe and human resource strengthening. Influencing policies In 2009, the Project has influenced pro-poor policies in five ways: (i) engaging with policy makers at high levels of central and local governments and in donor community; (ii) designing methods to identify, measure, and target urban poor communities, households and individuals, including the homeless; (iii) advocating a policy focus on extreme poverty, security of tenure issues, and community-based programming; (iv) intervening rapidly in cases of eviction and pro-actively in case of eviction threats; and (v) raising public awareness of urban poverty and related issues. The project has widened the Project Steering Committee to include Mayors of two project towns and community leaders in two CDCs. It has supported UNDP’s cochairing of the Local Consultative Group – Urban Working Group (UWG) and ensured that the UWG’s high profile Conversation Event, which was attended by key GoB decision-makers, included representatives from poor communities, focused on extreme poverty, and was informed by the concrete experiences of the Project. UPPR co-sponsored with UNESCAP a three-day regional conference on ‘pro-poor urban waste management for secondary cities and small towns in Asia and the Pacific’, at which it presented opening remarks, gave a technical presentation, participated in (through three town managers) and sponsored other members of the UWG. UPPR also supported the public awareness of World Habitat Day, World Town Planning Day, and International Women’s day during which it advocated its distinctive pro-poor community-based approach. At the local level, the project, including its community leaders, has engaged Mayors, ward councillors, and technical officers in the Town- and Ward-Level Consultative Committees, as well as sponsored town-to-town visits and an international exchange visit. Forming partnerships Partnerships have been strengthened, new ones formed, and still others are forming – with UN and other agencies. UNHABITAT has fielded a full time settle-

ment improvement advisor to manage output 2 (living environment improvement) and increased the number of its settlement improvement field staff. An agreement with ILO, to provide substantive inputs into output 3 (livelihoods improvement), is in advanced stages. UNICEF and UPPR have integrated their project activities Rangpur and Sirajganj to improve the effectiveness of both, and as a model for future collaboration. As advocated by UNHCR and DFID, the Project’s Dhaka project has initiated activities in a Bihari community of 2000 households, and plans to expand into other Bihari camps. UNDP’s Police Reform Programme will soon begin community policing activities into six project towns. UPPR has shared partnership concepts with WFP and has made initial contacts with WHO and FAO. The project has engaged NDBUS, a Dhaka-based grass-roots organisation of 1.5 million slum poor, to manage and perform mobilisation activities in the above-mentioned Bihari community. It has brokered a partnership with Coca Cola and UNHABITAT to improve water, sanitation, and hygiene in 30 schools in Dhaka and Comilla. Its partnership with CARE will improve the livelihoods of 13,500 people in four towns, and its agreement with ADB’s UGIIP-2 project will help ensure that the investments under that project are pro-poor. Together with the Bangladesh Computer Council, Ministry of Science, the UPPR is surveying 120,000 people in Korail slum. Partnership discussions have advanced with Concern Worldwide, Practical Action, Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre, Urban Primary Health Care Project, MATT-2, Bangladesh Development Institute, the Coalition for Urban Poor and UCEP. At the local level, over thirty local partnerships are active with NGOs and Government agencies for provision of services to poor communities and individuals. Focusing on extreme poverty The project has engaged an international extreme poverty adviser and a national extreme poverty coordinator; conducted an extensive literature survey on extreme poverty and best practices; held local consultations and workshops; and drafted a strategy for reducing extreme poverty in urban areas. Its new settlement mapping method ensures that all extremely poor settlements are identified, characterised, and mapped. Its homeless people survey has found over 22,000 homeless people in 20 towns, with the method sparking interest in other

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

countries. Its participatory well-being-assessment process has categorised over 107,000 households in over 350 communities in 16 towns, and has identified over 25,000 extreme-poor households, 8,000 female-headed, and 2,500 disable-member households. Services for the extreme poor have been identified in 20 towns with an aim to develop linkages between service providers and CDCs. The project has modified its implementation guidelines to remove the structural constraints that had excluded the extreme poor, such as mandatory savings and a ban on project support to non-PG members. All community-contracts in 2009 have targeted the extreme poor, and new approaches are being piloted to specifically benefit the extreme-poor. A pending partnership with Concern Worldwide will support three new pavement dwellers centres and pilot new initiatives in existing centres. Finally, the project collected numerous documents and references on extreme poverty. Improving security of tenure policies and practices The project engaged a full-time land tenure advisor and fielded a mission of a land tenure consultant, who produced a draft strategy for improving tenure security. In its rapid response to the eviction of one of its CDCs in Gopalganj, the project gave humanitarian assistance to the affected households, elevated the issue to national and international attention, organised an exposure tour of stakeholders – including the Honorable MP and Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Land, the Deputy Commissioner, and the Mayor – to Thailand to study ways to resolve tenure issues, and is supporting the Government’s resettlement plan, the main outcome of the tour. Similarly, the project has raised to national attention the issue of the heightened eviction threat against the Korail slum in Dhaka, partnered with the Bangladesh Computer Council (one of three land owners) to survey the affected-households, and advocated options to resolve this issue, including land-sharing and just compensation. The project is preparing detailed, settlement and vacant land maps with which it will advocate informed tenure security policies and development planning in all of its towns. Finally, the UPPR held consultations with members of a committee that drafted the “Prevention of Eviction of Slum Dwellers and Unlawful Occupation of Government Land Bill” and will hold a re-drafting workshop in 2010. Improving living environments Some 565 community-contracts, based on community action plans, were approved under the settlement improvement fund (SIF) for physical improvements in 540 CDCs. SIF expenditure exceeded the US$ 4 million annual budget by about 5 percent. About 45 percent was 6

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

spent on improved sanitation, 34 percent on improved access and environment, 17 percent on improved water supply and hygiene, and 5 percent on multipurpose centres. New physical assets include over 7,600 sharedand 6 communal latrines; over 1,000 new tubewells, 300 tubewell improvements, 42 reservoirs and mains connections and 60 bathrooms for women; over 87 kilometers of footpaths and 33 kilometers of drains; almost 50 street lights; 34 multi-purpose centres and 20 market shading structures. Improving livelihoods Some 986 community-contracts were approved under the socio-economic fund (SEF) for 405 CDCs, with expenditure exceeding the US$2.5 million annual budget by 10 percent. The contracts included 7,500 block grants to extreme poor women and over 17,400 apprenticeships. Some 5,500 children are in school as a result of education grants. Over 120,000 people have benefited from social development activities. Finally, over 950 training events in 16 different subject areas have benefited 54,000 persons, 78 percent of which were female. Expanding project coverage & mobilising communities Six new project towns Dhaka, Tongi, Comilla, Jessore, Rangpur, and Dinajpur joined the project and started operations in mid-2009. Over 670 community development committees, 7,000 primary groups, and 4,900 savings and credit groups were formed. These provided leadership opportunities for over 2,600 largely female CDC leaders and 13,000 primary group leaders, respectively. Mobilised populations reached about 880,000 people, or more than 28 percent of the project’s target, and primary groups covered over 135,000 household members. In addition, some 590 mature CDCs – in the eleven towns which had benefited under LPUPAP – remained active and received ongoing support. Establishing baselines The project developed and initiated an integrated, multi-level baseline survey process. At the town level, the baseline includes participatory settlement and vacant mapping and homeless people mapping. At the community level, the components include participatory wellbeing assessment, a household and household-member census, a household- and community-level agro-based survey, and a consultant implemented comprehensive random household survey. Communicating The project initiated several strategic initiatives to improve communications to the public and key stakeholders including a website, videos, case studies, one-page policy briefs, brochure, posters and calendars. The UPPR website includes information about the project and is updated regularly with news and events.

A video on ‘Urban Apprenticeship: Developing Skills For Life’ is one of the most-viewed on the UNDP’s website; another video focuses on the activities in Gopalganj, particularly the eviction of one of the project’s communities. The On-the-Ground series of two-page case studies highlights project outcomes from the point of view of beneficiaries. The One-Pagers present key project processes and tools in ‘bite size’ documents. The UPPR Brochures provides an overview of the whole project. Posters for Extreme Poverty Day, World Habitat Day, International Women’s Day, as well as a desk calendar for 2010, have raised public awareness on urban poverty related issues and project activities. Strengthening human resources The project successfully filled 95 percent and 84 percent

of its UNDP and GoB positions, respectively. In 2009, a total of 330 HQ and field positions were filled. The project started 2009 with 80 UNDP staff and 42 GoB staff and closed the year with 357 UNDP and 95 GoB staff. The quality of human resources were also upgraded through a policy of replacing lowperforming. long-term staff with new staff with more relevant profiles, and through capacity building activities. Improving the logframe The original log frame was revised in April 2009 through a series of stakeholder workshops. It was revised again in October 2009. The present logframe refined the wording of the outputs and indicators so as to better measure progress (see Annex 3).

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Background and Introduction Development Context Between 1980 and 2007, Bangladesh's Human Development Index rose by 1.86 percent annually from 0.328 to 0.543 and in 2007 she ranked 142 out of 182 countries. Life expectancy is currently almost 66 years, adult literacy 53 percent, and per capita gross domestic product, in purchasing power parity, is US$ 1,241. Of the 135 countries for which the Human Poverty Index has been calculated, Bangladesh ranks 112. On the genderempowerment measure, Bangladesh ranks 108 out of 109 countries. While Bangladesh is for the large part on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), this has mostly been driven by rural success. A recent World Bank study shows that progress toward key MDGs in urban areas is worsening or stagnating at best. Sanitation, for instance, has improved remarkably in rural areas but remains stagnant in urban areas. Within individual towns and cities, MDG outcomes vary significantly between low-income, especially slums, and wealthier areas. The following provides a summary of the present development context in Bangladesh as it pertains to the UPPR project. Political situation. Democracy is fragile in Bangladesh – a democratic government was re-established in early 2009 after two years under the caretaker government. The caretaker government embarked on a number of slum and hawker evictions, as well as settlement demolition drives which destroyed the livelihoods of the poor and resulted in their relocation to fringe areas unserved by basic services and with limited access to employment opportunities. Authorities have rarely ever offered rehabilitation schemes to the uprooted, despite the requirement to do so – by the High Court’s Division in 1999 (Writ Case No. 3034/1999), by Article 15 of the Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh which promises basic necessities of life including shelter for all and by its Article 32, which emphasises protection of right to life and personal liberty – and intention to do so as provided in the National Housing Policy. Economic situation. Bangladesh was not particularly affected by the global economic and financial crises, as exemplified by the performance of the economy during 2008-09. Lack of a liberalised capital account and the “Wal-Mart” effect played key roles in mitigating the

[1] Defined as a food intake of fewer than 2,122 k.cal. per day [2] Defined as an intake of fewer than 1,805 k.cal. per day

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

impact of the crisis. Exports held up and along with remittances helped buttress growth. The growth of real GDP slipped only by one third of a percent. The country’s economic performance however, has been rather weak in the current fiscal year. Growth is at best sluggish, mainly due to lacklustre investment. Lack of infrastructure, so critical for growth, and weak demand from export markets, have exerted downward pressure on exports and growth. While remittances are presently at record highs, anecdotal evidence suggests that lack of job opportunities in the Middle East – the main destination for workers – will adversely impact remittances and consequently weaken private consumption that is a significant driver of economic growth. Although food prices are well below peaks seen in 2008, a poor harvest in conjunction with an already low stock of foodgrains and dwindling food aid can bring to an end the benign inflation scenario. Such adverse developments could likely have significant anti-poor consequences. High proportion of poor and extreme poor. While information on urban poverty is limited, available data indicates that about 43 percent of urban residents are poor1 and 23 percent extremely poor2. This translates into about 15 million urban poor, including approximately 8 million extreme poor. The urban population is expanding at an annual rate of about 5 percent and slums are growing at 4 percent. According to the World Bank, Dhaka is the fastest growing mega-city in the world; between 300,000 and 400,000 mostly poor migrants arrive each year, mainly settling in slums, and adding to the already high population density – about 70 percent of Dhaka’s population resides in just 20 percent of the land area. Inadequate infrastructure. Urban poor communities in Bangladesh predominantly live in houses made with temporary materials that provide inadequate physical protection; have significant exposure to flooding; lack access to potable water, sanitation, bathing facilities, adequate solid waste management and electricity; and lack all weather access roads and footpaths. The 2009 UPPR household survey of seven towns found that 65 percent of the houses are kutcha (makeshift) and 57 percent of households live in a single room. UNICEF reports that 85 percent and 48 percent of the urban population respectively, use improved water sources and sanitation. Women and children are most severely affected by these conditions as they typically spend most of their time in or near the home.

Settlement patterns of the urban poor. According to the UNHABITAT, 25 million people or 70 percent of the urban population live in slums. A 2005 survey of six City Corporations estimated that 35 percent of their population resides in slums. Evidence shows that slums are dispersed throughout a given town or city and that most of them are small and therefore, costly to provide with infrastructure and services. For example, UPPR has found that among Tongi’s 711 poor settlements, 72 percent comprise than 50 households and 14 percent between 50 and 100 households. Sylhet too, has over 1000 officially recognised slums, with more expected to be identified by UPPR’s more exacting survey method. In addition, many slums have a significant proportion of better-off households, thus complicating pro-poor targeting. The homeless too, are dispersed and live in small clusters. UPPR’s mapping of the homeless discovered that of the 2500 homeless locations identified in 16 project towns, over 75 percent have less than 24 people. Lack of security of land tenure. In 1995, 16 percent of the poor in Dhaka owned the house they lived in, 56 percent were tenants, 8 percent were rent free dwellers and nearly 20 percent were squatters (Islam et al., 1997). Approximately 70 percent of Dhaka’s ‘low-income settlement’ residents have access – but not ownership – to only 20 percent of the city’s land. A LPUPAP study found the tenure situation to be highly complex, with fourteen types of tenure status in low income settlements. The UPPR household survey found that 7 percent of households claimed to have been evicted in the previously year. Inadequate planning for expansion. Existing towns and cities have not been planned nor do they have the requisite infrastructure to accommodate additional numbers of migrants. While there are development schemes to accommodate the middle class, there are none that cater to the less-well off. The poor have no choice but to settle in existing slums or form new ones. High vulnerability of the poor. The urban poor, particularly the extreme poor, are vulnerable to shocks such as sudden illnesses, loss of employment or accidents, social problems, food price shocks, flooding, evictions and personal insecurity, indebtedness and lack of access to financial services at market rates of interest. Even normal life cycle events such as births, marriages and deaths can force urban poor families into debt from which they may not recover. The elderly, mentally or physically disabled, chronically sick, and children and adults living and working on the street, are particularly vulnerable. Gender imbalances. Factors such as dowry, illegal divorce and domestic violence render women much more vulnerable and limit their productive and reproductive

choices. A higher proportion of urban female-headed households are poor (41 percent) in contrast to rural female-headed households (36 percent). Widowed, divorced and separated women in urban areas (46.5 percent) are poorer than their counterparts in and rural areas (44.8 percent). A UPPR survey (see Annex 11) in its communities in Rajshahi and Narayanganj found that about 14 percent of households are female-headed and that there are gross inequities along gender lines. For instance, there is a higher likelihood of a household being poor – as measured by various dimensions of poverty such as education, income, assets, house structure, number of cooked meals consumed per day and health indicators – if it is headed by a woman. Low education and skill levels. Many children of urban poor families do not attend primarily school. Others, especially girls, may have completed primary education but cannot complete secondary education due to unfavourable economic circumstances, lack of schools nearby and/or social constraints like early marriage. The 2009 UPPR household survey found that 27 percent of the age 6 and over population have never attended school, a high figure given that Bangladesh has adopted a universal primary education policy. Poor education in turn compounds lack of access to formal employment opportunities, low wages, unstable and seasonal incomes and engagement in enterprises that have low profit margins. Poor health care coverage. A study covering slums in six divisional cities noted that only 7.3 percent of slums have a public health clinic. While about 72 percent of non-slum areas have access to allopathic doctors nearby, only 27 percent of slums do. This leaves many slum residents to rely on pharmacies and homeopathic doctors. Women are additionally deterred from seeking health services because most health care providers are male. The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2009 found that only 24 percent of births are attended by skilled health personnel in urban areas (BBS 2010). High crime and violence. A World Bank Study found high and increasing levels of violence in slums – about 93 percent of households have been victimised by at least one of 33 different kinds of crime over the past 12 months (World Bank, 2007). Although the situation is especially severe for Dhaka, other cities of Bangladesh also experience high crime rates in which one in six households fell victim to a crime in the past 12 months. The poor in slums are often dependent on mastaans, or musclemen, who control rents and many basic services, and who extort, harm or even evict non-payers. In addition, gender-based violence is reportedly higher in slums, where about 62 percent of women report physical abuse by their husbands.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Lack of social safely nets. Social safety nets, because of higher rates of rural poverty, are predominantly designed for the rural poor. The overhead cost of implementing these safety nets is high and coverage is low, reaching just a small part of the target population. At the same time, despite the low coverage, multiple programmes often serve the same beneficiary, and benefits go to those who do not need them. Moreover, the rural poor and extreme poor who migrate to urban areas, often lose their entitlement rights to rural social safety net programmes, such as school stipends for girls. Government programmes for protection of the poor and vulnerable. Recently, however, since the election of the Awami League government, poverty reduction and expansion of social safety nets have been given high priority. The budgetary allocation during FY 2009-10 of US$ 2 billion for social safety nets is 26 percent higher than during the previous fiscal. The poor are also being helped through expansion of micro credit and US$ 29 million received from foreign sources has been allocated for this purpose. Food security for the poor and vulnerable has also been strengthened by allocating US$ 851 million for the Food for Works Programme, VGF, VGD, TR (Food), GR (Food) and food security programmes. The government is also targeting creation of employment opportunities for 0.7 million people or approximately 40 percent of the 1.8 million new entrants to the labour force. However, these initiatives have not benefited the urban poor much, nor is there any specific strategy for urban poverty reduction in the PRSP II. Limited donor response. Few donors have specific programmes that focus on urban development as rural poverty is a far more pressing concern. Those that do, mainly fund urban infrastructure, commercially viable developments, or governance programmes. Two recent exceptions are the ADB-funded UGIIP-2, the DFID and UNDP-funded Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction project, and the multi donor Urban Primary Health Care Project. An un-reformed UN system. The UN System is undertaking a “One UN” reform process which it is piloting in several countries. Although Bangladesh is not a pilot country, a UN Resident Coordinator, designated in late 2006, has the mandate to coordinate activities across the seven UN agencies that operate in Bangladesh.

Project Description The Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction project (UPPR) is the largest urban poverty reduction initiative in Bangladesh, and one of the largest in the world. Its goal is “To reduce urban poverty in Bangladesh” and its purpose is “To improve the livelihoods and living conditions of three

10 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

million urban poor and extremely poor people, especially women and girls”. The project’s key outputs, according to the proposed revised logframe (Annex 3), are: • Urban poor communities mobilized to form representative and inclusive subgroups and prepare community action plans; • Poor urban communities have healthy and secure living environments; • Urban poor and extremely poor people acquire the resources, knowledge and skills to increase their incomes and assets; and • Partnerships and city/urban development models/strategies developed to influence pro-poor local and national-level policies and practices. Project funds, totaling about USD 120 million, are provided by UKaid, UNDP, the Government of Bangladesh and the beneficiary communities. The implementing partners are the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), Local Government Division, Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, Government of Bangladesh, UNDP and UN-Habitat. The project began in March 2008 and will terminate in March 2015. See the project’s website at http://www.upprbd.org for detailed information. Key features of the project are the following: Focus on Extreme Poverty. The project focuses on extreme poverty by giving priority to the homeless and the poorest settlements, poorest households within settlements, and poorest members within families. It is developing approaches to better understand and meet the needs of female-headed households, pavement dwellers, elderly, street children, disabled and other marginalised and vulnerable groups. Its baseline and monitoring and evaluation systems are designed to collect extreme-poor disaggregated data. Policy advocacy and partnerships. The project pro-actively supports pro-poor policy development and implementation at the national and local government levels through the sharing of international and regional experiences, sponsorship and engagement in policy dialogues, engaging in concrete and vital local issues, like evictions, that have wider policy implications. The project also pursues partnerships at the national and local levels. Capacity Building. The project builds capacity of communities, local government and service providers, LGED counterparts, and UN field and headquarter staff through a combination of direct formal training, peer learning processes, community-to-community, town-totown and international exchange programmes, and on-the-job experiences.

Country-wide coverage. The project will cover 30 cities and towns – 6 city corporations and 24 district towns (see Annex 1). It covers the eleven towns previously supported under the UNDP-funded Local Partnerships for Urban Poverty Alleviation Project (LPUPAP) in order to cover the poorest slums in these towns that had not been previously covered. New towns are distributed across the country and have large numbers of poor and extreme poor, populations of over 80,000 people, and a local government with adequate capacity to manage the project. City-wide coverage. In all towns, with the exception of Dhaka and Chittagong, the project plans to cover all of the urban poor communities and homeless people, estimated to be about 43 percent of the total town populations. Settlements are identified through a participatory survey which records settlement sizes and assesses their vulnerability. This ‘city-wide approach’ is supported by the World Bank and UNHABITAT’s Cities Alliance and the Asia Coalition for Housing Rights. Community-based approach. Communities are supported to form primary groups, savings and credit groups, common-interest associations, community development committees, clusters of CDCs and town level Federations. Communities prepare and manage “commuity-contracts”, which are funded through the

project. Activities are planned and implemented by poor communities themselves, with support from project and local government staff. Integrated approach. The project includes and integrates interventions in physical infrastructure improvement (or slum-upgrading); livelihoods support such as apprenticeship, business start-up grants, vocational training, urban food production activities, child educational stipends; savings-and-credit operations; improvement of security of tenure; and social interventions to address early marriage, dowry, domestic violence and drug abuse. Experimental and Innovative. While interventions include those that had proven successful under LPUPAP, the project continually searches for new, effective practices, and ways to improve old ones. Its strategy is to pilot new approaches in a few towns and then scale-up good-practices that prove successful. Local government ownership. The project engages local governments at the city-wide and ward levels in the approval of community action plans and contract proposals, in the oversight and disbursement of funds for these contracts, and in annual work planning. Local governments are also engaged to provide town-level services to poor communities where possible. The project also includes local government staff and ward councilors in capacity development activities.

Ms. Alyea from Kashor Purba Para CDC, Mymenshing is working at the Integrated Social Sustainable Development Institute (ISSD) after having received apprenticeship training, supported by UPPR.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 11

Output 1: Mobilised communities Description of Output

[1]

In 2009, the project added six new towns , for a total of 23; developed and initiated an improved settlement-and-vacantland mapping method; developed and completed a method to identify homeless populations; improved its approach to settlement selection; and formed over 7,000 Primary Groups, 4,900 savings-and-credit groups, 673 CDCs, 118 clusters and four federations. The project initiated improvements to the CAP process, designed and implemented a Well-Being Assessment and designed and piloted a Household- and Household-Member Baseline Census.

Settlement and Land Mapping

The new Settlements and Land Mapping method, or SLM (Annex 6) identifies and maps (i) all low income slums and squatter settlements, including the smaller, vulnerable, marginal settlements, and (ii) all available vacant land that is potentially suitable for settlement or other pro-poor purposes. In this participatory method, community leaders and local government staff and officials are trained and undertake most of the work. The method has been tested and proven effective in Tongi and Gopalganj, where over 700 and 250 settlements were mapped, respectively. In 2010, SLM will be outsourced to a contractor, who will employ the same participatory approach in the remaining towns.

Selection of New Settlements

Given that the SLM method is finding more diverse poor settlements than the previous method, the project has had to revise its settlement selection and combinationinto-CDC policy and rules. The new rules are: (i) select the most vulnerable settlements first; (ii) combine settlements into larger CDCs only when settlements are contiguous – smaller CDCs are therefore acceptable; (iii) do not combine settlements that vary significantly in vulnerability and socio-economic status; (iv) split large settlements into small CDCs of no more than 300 household CDCs.

Homeless People Mapping

The project designed and pioneered a comprehensive survey: (i) to identify and map the diverse populations of homeless poor; (ii) to provide information to design interventions to address their needs and vulnerabilities; and (iii) to provide a baseline against which middle- and end-of-project surveys could measure change. The survey has so far found over 22,000 homeless people in 20 towns. Annex 5 provides a detailed description of the process and key results.

[1] Sylhet, Naogaon, Gazipur, Savar, Tangail and Nawbabganj

12 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Primary Group Formation

Primary Groups (PG), as their name implies, are the basic building block of community mobilisation. Assisted by a community organiser, households organise into groups representing about twenty households. All members of the PG elect their leader and secretary, who become the PG’s representatives to the CDC. In 2009, the project formed over 7,000 new PGs with over 135,000 members of which 99 percent were female. Almost 800 of these PGs were formed in old CDCs, either covering newly-arrived households, those that had been excluded, or both. The project successfully increased the percentage of households in PGs from 50 percent under LPUPAP to almost 70 percent under UPPR, in an effort to include the extreme poor households. Three towns – Dhaka, Dinajpur, and Tongi -have a PG household-participation rate of over 90 percent, while in some others the rate is less than one third. It has been observed that, in general, the higher the membership in PGs, the higher the percentage participation of “poor” and “extreme poor” and lower the percentage of “non-poor” households. The project also introduced new policies that: (i) require at least 60 percent of households to be members of PGs before forming a CDC; (ii) encourage the extreme poor to become leaders of PGs; (iii) encourage men to join PGs as equal partners by, among others, abolishing the one-household-member rule; (iv) engage PGs in activities other than savings-and-credit such as conducting surveys; and (v) enable project benefits to flow to non-PG members.

Saving and Credit Groups

The purposes of SCGs are to build PG solidarity and empowerment; promote savings habits and build financial management skills; and provide access-to-credit at a rate less than that of the micro-finance institutions. Members in community-managed SCGs tend to avoid loans from non-community-managed sources as they lose the interest and “management charges” and prefer to have funds which are entirely in their control. In 2009, the project formed 4,904 new Savings and Credit Groups (SCG) with over 82,000 members. Including SCGs in old CDCs, there were over 9,500 SCGs with over 154,000 members. Total accumulative savings had reached almost BDT 154 million, or about US$ 2.2 million, with cumulative credit at BDT 322 million, about US$ 4.7 million.

Table 3-1: CDC leadership by poverty status (%) Among all HHs 24

President 14

V. President 18

Secretary 18

Cashier 17

Poor

Not Poor

100

Extreme Poor

Total

After a project-initiated rapid review of SCGs in several towns found several cases of inadequate financial and organizational performance, the project developed an action plan that included an external review of SCGs in CDCs (see Annex 7). This review, in process in Sirajganj, is expected to provide recommendations for the way forward.

UPPR was covering a total population of about 1.7 million persons. CDCs are formed by primary group leaders and secretaries who come together to elect four office bearers from their members – president, vice president, secretary, and cashier – with at least three posts held by women. The Well-Being Assessment (WBA) of over 107,000 households revealed that out of over 1,000 CDC leaders, members from extreme poor households and poor households were, respectively, less and more represented in leadership positions than their proportion in the communities (Table 3-1). The WBA also showed that, except for the position of secretary, female-headed households hold more leadership positions than their proportion in the communities (Table 3-2).

Savings and Credit group in Refugee Potti CDC, Mymensingh.

Community Development Committees

Community Development Committees (CDC) are the most important governance structure for the activities of the project. Their three main responsibilities, performed with support from the town team and local government staff, are to: (i) maintain four bank accounts for savingsand-credit operations and the funds for settlement improvement, socio-economic development, and operations and maintenance; (ii) formulate community action plans; and (iii) develop proposals for and manage community-contracts. In 2009, the project had formed 673 new CDCs covering 177,000 households with a total population of 786,000 persons (see Table 3 Annex 2). It also covered new populations – about 94,000 people – old CDCs. Adding this to the existing population of the 583 old CDCs,

The project also introduced new policies that: (i) limit the size of CDCs[2]; and (ii) require regular CDC meetings, community auditing, changes in leadership through election and at least one annual general meeting with participation of all members.

Clusters and Federations

As CDCs mature, they are guided to form CDC clusters. Typically there are six to ten CDCs in a CDC cluster, which generally cover three wards. Once clusters are mature and there are sufficient numbers of them, they are encouraged to form a federation at the town level. Clusters and federations have the same four officer positions as do CDCs. In 2009, there were 118 clusters in 17 towns clusters and four federations in Khulna, Hobiganj, Chittagong and Sirajganj.

[2] UPPR guidelines had set a range for CDC size from 200 to 300 households. The project successfully kept the averaged size of new CDCs at 264 households compared to 343 under LPUPAP.

Table 3-2: CDC leadership by vulnerability category (%) Among all HHs

President

V. Pres.

Secretary

Cashier

Female-head HH

7.8

12.6

10.9

5.7

13.6

Tribal

1.3

1.5

1.2

1.9

3.0

Scheduled caste

1.5

4.2

3.1

3.8

3.4

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 13

Community Action Plans

Community Action Plans (CAP) are prepared soon after CDCs are formed. The CAP describes the community’s existing conditions (physical, social and economic), identifies and prioritises the main issues to be addressed, and prioritises the proposed interventions to be funded by the project. CAPs are approved by the Ward’s Project Implementation Committee and by the Project Town Board, chaired by the Mayor. In 2009, the project initiated a review of the CAP process and content. Noting the findings of the LPUPAP[3] reviews, and the lack of hard data to inform the planning process, the project introduced four new data collection processes into the CAP. These processes include well-being assessment, household and household-member census, mapping of services for the poor, and an agro-based resource survey. The CAP process will be broadened to provide a basis for all stakeholders – local government, private sector, civil society – to commit financial and other resources to undertake specific activities that promote the goals and policies of the CAP.

Community members during the perpetration for Community Action Plan

Finally, the project will improve the CAP method by adopting GTZ’s neighbourhood mapping software, already in use in six communities in Narayanganj.

Well-Being Assessment (WBA)

The project introduced a participatory Well-Being Assessment to identify extreme poor, moderate poor and non-poor in CDC areas (see Annex 9). So far, the WBA has covered over 107,000 households in 16 programme towns. The WBA method also records other vulnerability indicators such as women-headed households, low-castes, tribal ethnicity, and households with a disabled member. The WBA improves targeting, provides a poverty baseline, enables random selection of a sample for other surveys, and improves a community’s

[3] The review found that the project: 1. Excludes most disadvantaged and vulnerable households and individuals and does not specifically target the elderly, disabled, extremely poor, and women-headed households 2. Has no mechanisms to ensure physical integration of services for slums into city-wide delivery networks; 3. Pays little attention to listening to the community, interacting with other development actors, and facilitating dialogue with city/town development initiatives; 4. Has made no links through governmental or non-governmental initiatives to education and health services.

Chart 1: Well-Being Assessment in New CDCs in 16 towns 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% KLN

KST

MMS

NRG

PG Member

14 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

BGR

SRG

RNP

BRL

Extreme Poor

GPG

CML

CTG

Poor

RAJ

JSR

TNG

DNP

Not Poor

DHK

understanding of the status of its member households. Chart 1 shows the percentage of households by poverty status by town. It also shows that the percentage of households in primary groups ranges from a low of less than 10 percent in Khulna to over 90 percent in Dinajpur and Dhaka.

Household-Member Census

The project introduced a Household-Member Census as a participatory process to collect data on relevant characteristics of all individuals in households in the CDC. It is a ‘household-member’ instead of ‘family’ census so as to include non-family-related members of households such as friends and boarders. The simple questionnaire, designed in consultation with stakeholders such as ILO, includes questions on demographics, education, skills and employment, and health and disability status. The results of the census will be used by the project and CDCs to (i) identify potential candidates for existing project activities, including school stipends, apprenticeships, and business startup grants, as well as for planned services such as immunisation, maternity care, and linkages between residents with specific skill profiles and the business community[4] and (ii) to establish a baseline.

Household Census

The Household Census, also participatory like the Household-Member Census, collects data on house and land attributes basic infrastructure and service needs, social issues, and household assets. The census will be used to (i) help stakeholders to prioritise actions to improve infrastructure and service, land tenure and housing, and to address social issues; (ii) establish a baseline against which changes will be measured at the middle and end of the project; (iii) compare and triangulate with the results of other processes including WBA and the Household Survey for validation purposes. The project has developed a census training manual, piloted the process in one CDC, and up-scaled it to the Korail slum in Dhaka and Tongi town.

[4] UPPR has piloted the process in one CDC in Korail slum in Dhaka. The Korail pilot, which covered almost 500 persons in 132 households, confirmed the usefulness of the process. For instance, it identified 32 widowed, abandoned, or divorced women; 32 girls who were married before they were 15 years old; 43 diarrhoea sufferers, and 11 in need of immunisation. The process is now being extended to all towns.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 15

Output 2: Healthy and secure living environments Description of Output

The projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Settlement Improvement Fund (SIF) provides the financial resources to support all physical investments under this output. All SIF investments are identified through the Community Action Planning (CAP) process, and all investments are delivered through community-contracts that are prepared by CDCs with the help of the project staff. Community-contracts deliver five types of services or components: improved water supply and hygiene; sanitation; access and environmental improvements; sheltered space; and urban food production infrastructure. Communities choose from a menu of 13 different assets (see Table 4-1). Town teams train CDCs to formulate contract proposals and cost estimates for the construction of these different assets. The proposals must be endorsed by ward committees and municipal committees and approved by project HQ. The project disburses the full amount of the contract value to the Municipalities who in turn disburse the funds to CDC bank accounts in three instalments. Town teams and municipal engineers monitor progress and approve progress payments. Community contracting provides many direct and indirect benefits. The direct benefits include avoidance of external contractor overheads, local skill development and increased income of slum residents through employment as skilled and unskilled labour, and stimulation of

Table 4-2: Completion Status of 2008 SEF assets at end of 2009 Target

Complete

4,665

4,492

731

656

Footpath (m)

51,164

48,422

Drainage (m)

15,930

16,136

101

Asset Latrines (#) Tube Wells (#)

Water Reservoir (#)

local economies through local manufacture of components. Indirect benefits, as a result of community ownership of the process, include improved quality of construction and a greater willingness to maintain the works. The process also strengthens relationships between communities and municipal authorities who must collaborate in the contract approval and implementation process.

Status of settlement improvement activities approved in 2008

In 2008, 424 community-contracts were approved, valued at TK 151 million (US$ 2.2 million). At the end of 2009, TK 142 million, about 95 percent, had been spent, and a small balance remained with CDCs and Municipalities for outstanding activities. As shown in Table 4-2, at the end of 2009, over 90 percent of the all approved latrines, tubewells, footpaths and drainage have been constructed.

Table 4-1: Types of Components and Assets Components Improved water supply and hygiene

Assets New tubewells (shared by about 20 households) Improved platforms for existing tubewells New water reservoirs and mains connections Bathrooms (mainly for women)

Improved sanitation

Shared-latrines (three-households per latrine) Community-latrines Included paved - and in some cases raised - footpaths

Improved physical access and environment

Storm water drains Drain cover Streetlight posts

Sheltered space Improved urban food production

16 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Community multi-purpose centres Market shading structures Pond excavation and pond stairs

105 percent. Over 560 community-contracts were approved. Table 4-3 shows that improved sanitation was the most important priority in terms of cost, and accounted for almost 45 percent of the delivery, followed by physical access and environment, and improved water supply and hygiene.

Table 4-3: Cost of Components BDT Million

Percent budget

128.4

44.9

Improve access and environment

96.2

33.6

Improve water supply and hygiene

47.3

16.5

Sheltered space

14.1

4.9

Need Improved sanitation

Improved urban food production Total

0.2

0.1

286

100

But completion status varied by town and by asset. Two towns, Mymensingh and Sirajgonj, have incomplete latrines. Five towns have incomplete footpaths[5] and five have incomplete drainage[6]. While footpaths in five towns[7] are only 77 percent complete, in four others[8] they exceeded their targets by 20 percent. Drainage is about 87 percent complete in five towns[9], while two[10] have exceeded their targets by the same percentage. Delays in completing water reservoirs were due to difficulties in making connections to the mains. Town teams are now preparing contract variations to complete the work by using contingency funds where required.

Settlement improvement activities in 2009

In 2009, the SIF budget was US$ 4.2 million, but actual delivery was almost USD 4.4 million, for a delivery rate of [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Khulna, Mymensingh, Narayangonj, Sirajgonj, Rajshahi Chittagonj, Gopalgonj, Khulna, Mymensing, Narayanjong Khulna, Mymensingh, Narayangonj, Rajshahi, Sirajgonj Barisal, Chittagonj, Gopalgonj, Khustia Chittagonj, Gopalgonj, Khulna, Mymenshing, Narayangonj Hobigonj, Khustia

Annex 16 provides tables that show the status of SIF delivery by town in 2009. Towns had different infrastructure priorities: improved sanitation was the top or second priority in all towns, while improved access and environment was the first priority of seven towns, the second priority of 3 towns, and the third priority of 9 towns, and the fourth priority of 1. Improved water supply was the first priority of only one town, while the second priority of 6, and the third priority of 10. Towns also differed in the assets that they selected to achieve a component. For example, while all towns addressed improved sanitation through shared latrines, Tongi also constructed community latrines. Almost all towns provided improved water through tubewells, but four also improved the water point platforms, and two connected to the mains through water reservoirs. Two towns also introduced bathing facilities for women. All towns except Jessore constructed improved footpaths. And with the exception of Hobiganj, Dinajpur, and Tongi, all towns included drainage works. Only one town used the SIF to support aquaculture through excavating a pond and constructing stairs.

Table 4-4: Number of SIF assets and estimated beneficiaries in 2009

Asset Shared- latrines Communal latrines

No.

Avg asset cost BDT ‘000

# HH per asset

BDT ‘000 Per HH

Total asset cost BDT ‘000

Total HHs

7,669

5.7

130,373

23,007

3.1

153

918

300

Footpaths (meter)

87,370

Community

87,370

Community

Drains (meter)

33,087

Community

33,087

Community

2.0

39,468

20,240 6,540 1,340

Drain Slabs Tubewells

Community

1,012

Platforms

327

0.7

4,251

Bathrooms

0.9

1,206

1.2

2,562

2,100

392

Community

13,974

Community

Water Reservoirs

Street Light Posts

Multi-purpose Centres

411

50 Community Community Community

160

Pond Excavations

165

Community

165

Pond Stairs

Community

Market Shades

Total

Community Community Community 53,527

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 17

Table 4-4 gives data on the number of assets and beneficiary households in 2009. It shows, for instance, that the project delivered over 7,500 shared-latrines, 1000 tubewells, almost 90 kilometres of footpaths, and over 30 kilometres of drains. Based on assumptions given below, the estimated number household beneficiaries of these assets totalled over 23,000 for shared latrines, 300 for communal latrines, and 20,000 for tubewells. The number of beneficiaries in the above table depends of the nature of the asset. Community assets, such as footpaths, drains, multi-purpose centers, are seen to benefit the whole community. Communal assets, such as tubewells, communal latrines, and bathrooms, are assumed to benefit the households in close proximity; for example, tubewells benefit 20 households while communal latrines benefit 50. Semi-private assets, like latrines, are typically shared by and therefore benefit specific households. The table above also shows that sharedlatrines and tubewells are more expensive per household than are communal latrines and water-reservoirs with connections to the mains.

Innovations in 2009 Community contracting rules and revisions The project initially adopted LPUPAP rules for community contracting. Among the most important are: a contract value ceiling of US$ 10,000; a per-household ceiling of BDT 6,500 for total investment; a ratio of not less than three-households, or 15 persons, per shared-latrine ; a ratio of 20 households per tubewell; and a bar on new contract approval until prior contract completion. In 2009, the project revised a few of these rules. Recognising the impact of inflation, the greater demand from larger CDCs, the transaction costs and the inherent delays of the approval process, it raised the contract value ceiling to US$ 15,000 and lifted the bar on prior-contract completion.

The project also directed the towns to engage the extreme poor in the SIF construction work as laborers. Field assessment of delivery A series of rapid field assessments in a number of towns has uncovered several issues that warrant further and systematic investigation. These issues include, for example, latrines that had been ‘captured’ by one of the sharing households, multiple latrines and tubewells servicing the same households, damaged and inoperative latrines and tubewells, footpath paving not following the topography, and broken and clogged drains. In 2009 the project compiled a database of all SIF assets that have been approved under LPUPAP and UPPR. However, it has never confirmed whether, where or to what quality these assets were constructed. It is unknown who is using the assets, to what extent the poor and extreme poor are benefiting, or whether they are working or need repairs. It is unknown if other agencies have constructed assets in the CDCs, or if the community is satisfied in the results. To answer these questions, and to improve its M&E system, the project has designed a participatory process (see Annex 14) in which the CDCs, with town team support, will map and assess all assets delivered through SIF by the LPUPAP and UPPR, planned under UPPR, or constructed under other non-project activities. Partnering and subcontracting A number of partnerships are pending to improve the quality and impact of this output including those with Practical Action and Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre. A consultancy is pending to improve designs of communitybased physical infrastructure and design training, orientation and community awareness materials to improve the hygiene and sanitation practices of beneficiaries.

Ms. Ratna from Refugee Potti CDC in Mymensingh is an active Saving and Credit Group member and lives on khas land next to the railway with her three daughters and son. In this picture she is helping the CDC to “cure” the concrete footpath.

18 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Output 3: Increased incomes and assets Description of Output

The project’s Socio-Economic Fund (SEF) provides the financial resources to support most of the investments under this output. In addition to this fund, other activities in support of this output, such as capacity building and exchange visits, are funded through a NEX fund managed by LGED. All SEF investments are identified through the participatory Community Action Planning (CAP) process, and investments are delivered through community-contracts that are prepared by CDCs with the help of the project staff. Based on the CAP, community contracts are prepared to deliver four main programmes: apprenticeships, business start-up grants, education grants, and social-development activities. The apprenticeship programme provides opportunities for women and men to obtain skills that lead to eventual employment. Each apprentice receives a wage supplement totalling no more than BDT 2,000 per month. Apprenticeship periods average about six months but can vary depending on the trade. The apprentice identifies the desired skill and sometimes identifies a specific business to which they wish to apprentice. The business start-up grants programme provides extremely poor women with training, a grant of up to BDT 5,000, and a mentor to provide guidance for six months. The mentor – who must be from the community, with a class 9 education, have empathy for the poorest, and attend specialist training – is paid 10 percent of the grant to support the grantee and ensure proper use of funds. The education grants programme provides up to BDT 4,500 stay-in-school stipends to secondary school students, mostly girls, who would have otherwise dropped out.

Ms. Runa Begum (45 years) – Rolling Machine Operator. UPPR Apprenticeship Programme in Narayanganj

The social development programme addresses health, social issues, education, and urban food production issues. Health and social interventions include HIV/AIDS awareness, eye care and surgery, hygiene promotion and sanitation, solid waste management, primary health care, reproductive health training, support for disabled people, adolescent activities and social issue awareness. Education interventions include daycare centers cum preschool, literacy for women, and child labor awareness. New innovations include a CDC newsletter, emergency response to the cold wave, and support for eviction-affected workers. The urban food production component, part of the social development programme, aims to increase the number of households engaged in food production, improve productivity and marketing, and add value to the products. Activities included a baseline survey at the household and community levels, the provision of technical assistance by the town team, links to

Table 5-1: SEF contract delivery for all, old and new CDCs Item CDCs in Programme No of CDCs with SEF contracts % CDCs with contracts

Total 1263

Old CDCs 583

New CDCs 680

405

191

214

No of Contracts

985

245

740

Contracts/CDC

2.43

1.28

3.46

Total Contract Value BDT ‘000,000

194

151

Per CDC allocation BDT '000

480

229

703

Households '000 in CDCs

1,412

1,316

Population '000 in CDC

6,701

398

6,302

566

452

114

Per Household allocation

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 19

beneficiaries in the three main programmes – apprenticeship, block grant, education support – varied significantly. Table 2 shows that the proportion of female beneficiaries, generally above 50 percent, fell below this in a few towns for a few programmes. Table 3 shows that the total contract value also varied significantly across towns, with Mymensingh alone accounting for 25 percent of total SEF expenditure. Table 4 shows that the per-beneficiary costs of programmes also varied across towns, suggesting that closer scrutiny of the town-level is needed.

Urban Food Production

Urban food production activities have been included in about 400 CAPs, realised in over 80 community-contracts, and have benefited over 8,000 urban poor, of which over 6,200 are female. The contracts established 266 demonstration sites at the household level and 15 at the community level. More than 6,000 households have received agricultural inputs such as improved vegetable seeds, saplings, and chickens. Almost 900 extreme poor women have received a grant to start an agro-business. And a rapid survey of about 400 of them found that they were earning on average about BDT 1,216 per month.

Mushoom Production - Socio-Economic Development

government extension service providers, the provision of inputs, and household- and community-level demonstration projects.

Socio Economic Activities in 2009

In 2009, the SEF budget was US$ 2.57 million and actual delivery amounted to US$ 2.83 million, for a delivery rate of 110 percent. There were about 990 contracts approved for 405 CDCs, with almost 590 contracts managed by CDCs and about 400 by clusters, in which the contract benefited more than one CDC. More new CDCs received contracts, and the value of contract per CDC was three times greater, than old CDCs (see Table 5-1).

More than 3,000 people in 15 towns received training in such areas as vegetable and mushroom production, poultry and goat rearing, pond fish culture, and beef fattening. Monitoring by the project team has found that most (87%) of the participants in training have applied their knowledge, which has lead to a 25 percent increase in production and a 19 percent increase in household food consumption. In addition, about 19 percent of those who have not been directly trained also adopt the new methods by learning from neighbours. Some 115 CDC members have been trained as poultry vaccinators and campaigners, resulting in a significant reduction of poultry mortality. Finally, five MoUs have been signed with agri-services providers – these include agencies from local governments, NGOs, and private sector – in Chittagong, Khulna, Barisal and Gopalganj.

Table 5-2 provides a summary of the costs and beneficiaries by programmes. The table shows that the number of beneficiaries was inversely related to the per unit programme costs. Social development, with the lowest unit cost, had the largest number of beneficiaries, accounting for 89 percent of the total, while education support, with the highest unit costs, benefited 4 percent. The apprenticeship programme accounted for the highest percentage (34%) of the SEF budget, followed by social development (27%), and block grants and education support at 19 percent each of the SEF. Annex 17 contains tables that provide programme- and town-level data on the four main SEF programmes. Table 1a shows the number of beneficiaries of all programmes. Table 1b shows that the percentage of

An Urban Food Production Baseline Survey has been completed at the household and community levels by

Table 5-2: SEF programme summary by beneficiaries and costs Programme

Beneficiaries

Costs

Number 147,436

% female 89

Urban Food Production

6,537

Apprenticeship

29,112

Block Grant

8,037

4,567

Social Development

Education Support TOTAL

% of total 75

per beneficiary 344

total BDT ‘ooo 50,674

% of total 26

417

2,727

2,297

66,867

36,704

6,735

5,533

37,265

197,857

100

982

194,237

100

20 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

CDC leaders in an average of 19 CDCs in each of 15 towns, covering almost 4,500 households in almost 300 CDCs. The household survey found that urban food production is already widespread, diverse, and delivers significant benefits[11], but also there is room for improvement[12]. Annex 10 summarises the results of the community survey.

Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening Annex 22 shows that, in 2009, the project held over 950 training events and trained more than 54,000 persons in 16 different types of training. About 85 percent of the beneficiaries were female. Annex 23 provides details of the type of beneficiaries for each programme type and the percentage of female participants in each. Annex 27 shows that there were 134 exchange-visits; 24 between towns and 110 between CDCs within towns. These visits provided learning opportunities and established linkages between communities and elected representatives. They also built personal relationships through the practice of community members staying with host families rather than in hotels. Participants returned from these visits with new ideas to solve their community problems and a feeling of solidarity with communities from their host towns. Training was also provided, based on the needs of the communities, in organisation and management, community contract management, quality control of construction, accounting, leadership, gender awareness, savings and credit operation, income generating activities and micro-enterprise development. The training included financial management and other technical support services for the utilisation of micro capital grants. Special care has been taken to address the needs of socially disadvantaged individuals and groups of the society. In addition, community facilitators have been trained to strengthen the community mobilisation and organisation.

Innovations in 2009

In 2009, the project introduced a number of innovations, some which were implemented project-wide and some only piloted in one or two towns. These innovations included the mapping of services for the poor, agrobased household resource surveys, guaranteed 100 days of employment to the poor in Narayanganj, production

[11] For example, 39% of households are engaged in one or more agro-based activity, varying from a high of 58% in Mymensingh to a low of 5% in Tongi. A typical CDC has 350 chickens producing 633 kg per year, 35 goats producing 320kg of meat per year, 30 cows or ox producing 1951 kg milk meat per year, 152 decimals and 93 decimals of garden space and ponds, respectively. The total estimated value of agro-resources is Tk 650,000, or almost Tk 6,000 per household. [12] For example, only 31% of available gardens are fully used for agriculture, the rest only partially used (43%) or not used at all (26%). And the respective figures for pond use are similar.

Exchange visit â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Dinajpur CDC visiting Rajshahi CDC

of a CDC newsletter in Dinajpur, primary health care for extreme poor in Barisal, a daycare centre in Mymensingh, and health service and disable development for the extreme poor in Narayanganj and various emergency responses. The following sections provide details on some of these innovations. Town Level Mapping of Services for the Poor Little was known about services available to address the needs of the poor and extreme urban poor in project towns. The project has therefore developed a participatory approach to and has prepared town-level inventories of these services in 20 towns. The aim is to link specific groups of slum and homeless people to these service providers and identify service coverage gaps, which the project will aim to fill. The inventory covers services such as shelter, education, health and vocational training for the most vulnerable children, adolescent and women, social safety nets and social protection schemes such as vulnerable-group-development and old-ageallowancesme. Guaranteed 100 Days of Employment to the Poor Based on the National Rural Guarantee Employment Scheme (NRGES) in India and the 100-days employment programme in rural areas in Bangladesh â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the project is piloting, in Narayanganj a project to provide 100 days of employment for extreme poor and poor, in an effort to influence government safety net policy. The pilot has three phases. In phase-1, poor and extreme poor people, as identified in the WBA, will be employed as labor for the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SIF contracts. In phase-2, poor and extreme poor will be linked to government and private sector employment opportunities. In phase-3, the process wll be formalised into a job placement programme. The project will then document lessons-learned and influence policy and practices to upscale the employment guarantee scheme.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 21

CDC News letter A community-contract in Dinajpur was approved to pilot the concept of a community newsletter. Under this pilot, a local reporter will train community residents in writing and preparing a newsletter. Primary Health Care for Extreme Poor A pilot project in Barisal will provide primary health care for about 1,600 extreme poor households in one cluster. The project, which will employ a paramedic doctor and health attendant, will register patients and require them to pay BDT 10 for an examination, but wave the cost of medicine for the extreme poor. The project will also link to the Urban Primary Health Care Project (UPHCP) for services that cannot be provided by the paramedic. Emergency Responses to Disasters In 2009, the project responded to four emergencies: cyclone Ayala in Barisal, a cold wave in the North-West, an eviction in Gopalganj, and a fire in Narayanganj. UPPR considers that mitigation of the impacts of disasters is part of an urban poverty reduction strategy. It will institutionalise an emergency response fund in preparation for future emergencies. The Ayala cyclone that hit Barisal costal areas in May 2009 affected huge numbers of poor people living at the bank of Kirtankhola River. In response to this crisis, within 48 hours, the project provided emergency medical supplies and relief goods for the most vulnerable 450 CDCs.

Forced eviction in Gopalgonj

22 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

In response to the deadly 2009 cold wave, the project procured and distributed, in less than 48 hours, over 16,000 blankets to the extremely poor households and homeless people that it had identified through its surveys. Funds for the blankets came from the SEF, CDCs own savings accounts, rich donors who were mobilized by CDCs, and contributions from project staff. In response to the eviction of almost 400 households, or about 2,000 people, from a CDC on Government land in Gopalganj, the project and its community groups assisted about 200 households to take shelter on a temporary site. It constructed three latrines and one tubewell, provided emergency medical services for pregnant mothers and children, distributed temporary food supplies, located about 100 scattered households to provide them with humanitarian support, collaborated with the municipality to resettle small businesses, and elevated the issue to a policy level intervention. In response to a fire in a settlement in Narayanganj that had not been mobilised under UPPR, the Project, in partnership with GTZ, undertook a damage assessment, helped the community to prepare an emergency CAP, supported housing reconstruction, repaired the infrastructure, arranged fire safety training, and initiated income generation activities.

Output 4: Pro-poor national and local level policies and practices National Level Policy Influencing Policy Advocacy for Land Tenure Security In 2009, the project focused attention on the problems of land tenure security. It engaged an international security of tenure, housing and planning advisor; undertook a rapid ownership-and-tenure study; responded strategically to the eviction of a poorcommunity in Gopalganj and the threat of evictions of Korail slum in Dhaka; and is conducting settlement and vacant land mapping in all its towns (Annex 6). An ownership and tenure study was conducted by the international advisor and the PTTs for CDCs in all 17 towns. The survey found that, across all CDCs, only 31 percent and 12 percent of the slum households, respectively, are on private land and occupy Government Institutions’ land. Based on the survey results, the short-term advisor identified a strategy for mobilising policy support at national level. Project response to Gopalganj CDC eviction. The project responded swiftly and strategically to the eviction of about 400 households who had been residing for 30 years at the bank of a river. It engaged a team to video and photograph the action, provided humanitarian assistance to the affected-households, drafted a letter from UNDP to the District Commissioner[13], raised the issue to OHCHR, supported the resettlement of twenty micro entrepreneurs on municipality-provided land, and arranged a study tour to Thailand through AIT to expose key evictions stakeholders – including an MP, DC, Mayor, and CDC leaders – to proven solutions to improve land tenure security, such as land-sharing. The result of these actions is a local government plan-of-action that includes re-settlement of evictees on government or municipal land, and workshops at the town and national levels on tenure security. Over 4 acres of Khas land has now been identified for resettlement and plans are being further developed. UPPR and UN-HABITAT Nairobi Urban Finance Branch are exploring possible alternative financial arrangements. Engagement with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Land. Immediately after the Gopalganj eviction, the project informed the Chairman of the [13] The letter registered UNDP’s concern and requested the DCs cooperation in addressing the plight of the eviction-affected community, staying further slum clearance actions, and in developing pro-poor policies toward improving tenure security.

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Land, MP Mr. Mozammel Haque. Participating in the project’s study tour to Thailand with the Gopalganj stakeholders, he was exposed to pro-poor land-sharing and rehabilitation models. This resulted in his increased commitment and sense of urgency to address the issue. He attended the policy workshop in Gopalganj, organised by the project and the district administration, and has become a ‘champion’ of pro-poor land reform and rights of the urban poor to secured land. Project Response to Threat of Eviction in Korail Slum. Korail Slum has been home to about 120,000 people for more than 20 years. Recently, one of the three institutional owners of the land, Bangladesh Computer Council under the Ministry of Science, announced plans to develop its parcel as an IT Village. The project responded swiftly and strategically to this threat. First, it supported community-BCC consultations. Then it partnered with BCC and the community to undertake a survey of all slum households. It is supporting negotiated solutions to the issue including land-pooling and land-sharing on the three sites and resettlement with compensation on alternative sites. In late January 2010, three UPPR staff participated in the LCG Urban Sector Working Group meeting in which they gave a presentation on the eviction threat, explained several options for resolving the matter, including land-sharing, and undertook to lead a working group to further discussions. Lobbying for legislation against the slum eviction. The project has initiated discussions with the key organisations (Ain-o-Salish Kendra, CUS and South Asians for Human Rights) who had helped draft and lobby for the ‘Prevention of Eviction of Slum Dwellers and Unlawful Occupation of Government Land Bill of 2009’, which was tabled as a private member bill in the Parliament. The sub committee on private member bills has yet to take up this issue for discussion in the Parliament. Based on initial experiences of settlement and vacant land mapping and interventions in slum demolition issues at Gopalganj and Dhaka, the project will bring together all the concerned stakeholders to review the content of the above bill and to discuss strategies for lobbying with the concerned ministry for re-introducing the bill in the Parliament.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 23

Policy-influencing to address extreme urban poverty In 2009, the project focused attention on addressing extreme poverty in urban areas. It engaged an international extreme poverty advisor and national extreme poverty coordinator; participated in the Extreme Poverty Day events; drafted an extreme poverty strategy for urban areas; and hosted a workshop on extreme urban poverty. The Workshop on Extreme Urban Poverty, attended by 40 professionals from NGOs, academia and donor agencies, identified gaps and issues in current efforts to reduce urban extreme poverty in Bangladesh, explored ways to consolidate current urban poverty reduction programs to better reach the extreme poor, and supported the ideas of networking among key organisations, developing an extreme poverty reduction strategy, and making institutions inclusive. UPPR has formulated a ‘strategy for reducing extreme poverty in urban areas’, based on international bestpractices and extensive consultations with a range of stakeholders, including extreme urban poor. The strategy calls for action at the slum, town, and national levels. It includes actions such as: (i) targeting, enabling and monitoring extreme poor’s access to UPPR services and benefits; (ii) making UPPR benefits sustainable by promoting institutional linkages and inclusive institutional practices; (iii) creating enabling policy environment for extreme urban poor through partnerships, networking and advocacy. Annex 13 provides a summary of the urban extreme poverty strategy. UPPR also participated in an International Workshop on Conditional Cash Transfer and Social Protection organised, in India, by UNDP and International Policy Centre – Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG). UPPR gave a presentation on homeless mapping, and will host a

delegation from India to learn more about this method. UPPR is also collaborating with UNDP on research into social safety nets and social protection in urban areas. UPPR also completed an analysis of the data from a survey in Rajshahi and Narayanganj under LPUPAP, which focused on the gender aspects of urban poverty (Annex 11). Policy Support for Pro-Poor Water and Sanitation Services UPPR has been engaged with the Policy Support Unit (PSU), LGD-Danida for Water Supply and sanitation and has commented on policy papers of PSU to promote pro-poor water and sanitation services. It is also is core member of Citywide Sanitation Forum established with participation of WSP-World Bank, JICA, ADB and LGIs under the leadership of LGD of MLGRDC. This forum is an ideal platform to select the best practices and share those to the relevant implementers and policy makers for replication and policy formulation. UPPR also participates in the LCG Water and Sanitation Sub-Group to share experiences of UPPR and influence other development partners to promote pro-poor service delivery and policy environment. Engagement with the LCG-Urban Working Group, UN Agencies and other active networks The project has provided support to UNDP’s cochairing the Local Consultative Group – Urban Working Group (UWG), the other co-chairs of which are the Secretary of Local Government Division and GTZ. In early January 2010, the project co-funded, helped plan, supported and participated in the LCG Urban Working Group’s two-day Urban Conversation in Sylhet titled “Bridging the Urban Divide: Towards a strategic approach to urban poverty reduction”. Participation included five UPPR management and advisory staff, the NPD, two programme staff of UNDP CO including Deputy Country Director, and four community leaders including two CDC leaders from two UPPR towns. The event was attended by elected representatives, academics and practitioners from both government and non-govt sectors, including Sylhet City Corporation Mayor and Local Government Division Secretary. UPPR is engaging with other departments within UNDP, particularly the poverty cluster, and meets regularly with UNDP senior management. It is collaborating with UNDP to develop an Urban Poverty Website and ‘Solution Exchange’, an electronic knowledge networking community of practices on urban poverty. This will be a

Mr. Stefan Priesner, UNDP Country Director, Prof Nazrul Islam and Mr. Ali Ahmed, UPPR Project Director in the opening ceremony for the first Extreme Poverty Strategy Workshop.

24 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Mr. Alexander Jachnow GTZ, Mr. Badar Uddin Ahmed Kamran Honorable Mayor Sylhet City Corporation, Mr. Monzur Hossain Secretary of LGD and Mr. Robert Juhkam Deputy Country Director UNDP in Sylhet Urban Conversation Event.

UN-sponsored space where development professionals with similar interests connect to share knowledge and experience towards the common objective of problem solving. The Solution Exchange is expected to be launched in early 2010. Finally, UPPR contributed to the TOR for the Study of Urban-Rural Linkages and will contribute to its costs. UPPR/UNDP co-sponsored with UNESCAP, a threeday regional knowledge sharing conference on ‘pro-poor urban waste management for secondary cities and small towns in Asia and the Pacific’ in February 2010. UPPR/UNDP gave a speech advocating strong urban poor community involvement in solid waste management, presented a case study from Sri Lanka, and established a basis for a partnership with Waste Concern. The mayors of two UPPR towns, Kushtia and Narayanganj, shared their experiences on decentralised composting and replication of the Waste Concern approach. The conference was attended by town managers of three UPPR towns with solid waste management communitycontracts and the LGED settlements engineer. UPPR/UNDP also sponsored the participation of three members from the LCG urban sector group – UNICEF, GTZ, and WaterAid –in this workshop. Around 60 international participants from different countries and organisations and 20 participants from Bangladesh attended this workshop. UPPR supported public awareness of World Habitat Day on 5 October, the theme of which was ‘Planning Our Urban Future’. The State Minister for Housing, the Secretary and other officials of relevant ministries and departments as well as representatives of other organisations took part in national celebration. UPPR supported the celebration and the publication of a poster along with the Ministry of Housing and CUP (Coalition for the Urban Poor) and participated in a seminar organised by the Ministry. UPPR also supported the Bangladesh Institute of

Planners to observe World Town Planning Day at the national level and jointly organised a roundtable on the key issues and challenges of urban planning in Bangladesh. Leading urban planners, academicians and policy makers attended the roundtable, where UPPR’s settlement and community planning approach was presented as a good model of pro-poor town planning. A special supplement was published in two national dailies, including The Daily Star, which advocated UPPR’s various processes – including settlement and land mapping, land inventory and WBA – as important tools of pro-poor town planning. UNDP sees UPPR as a means by which UN agencies can come together to pool resources and ideas to reduce urban poverty. UPPR has drafted agreements with UNICEF and ILO, and has consulted with WFP on urban food security issues, and has made initial contacts with WHO.

Local-level Policy-influencing

The project continues to engage with Mayors, ward councillors, and technical officers in project activities including town-to-town and international exchange visits. The stakeholders are developing a positive attitude towards community based urban slum upgrading and constructive partnerships between poor communities and local governments, having participated in and seen the benefits of such an approach. Some towns have adopted aspects of such an approach that compliment that of the project. Town Level Coordination Committees (TLCC) TLCCs are operational in several project towns. Attended by town teams and representatives from CDCs, TLCCs have representation from local government, civil society and the private sector. In many towns the project teams gave presentations about UPPR content and progress and hosted a visit of TLCC members to CDCs. TLCC members expressed interest in settlement mapping, homeless mapping, community mobilisation and CAP, and some members are now interested in adopting participatory procedures for their own activities. TLCCs have become the foci for coordination between UPPR and UGIIP-2. In one town, the town team advocated tenure security for 2000-3000 hawkers.

National-level Partnerships

In 2009, significant efforts were made to strengthen existing and identify and formalise strategic partnerships with UN and with various types of other agencies. Realised or pending UN-family partnerships include those with UNHABITAT, UNDP’s Police Reform Programme, ILO, and UNICEF, UNHCR, WFP, WHO, and FAO. Realised or pending partnerships with other development agencies include those with CARE,

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 25

Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre, BRAC Development, Practical Action, Concern Worldwide and UCEP. Realised or pending partnerships with other projects include those with UGIIP-2 (and GTZ), Urban Primary Health Care Project and MATT-2. In addition there is a partnership with a private sector entity, Coca Cola Bangladesh, and NDBUS, an organisation of the slum poor in Dhaka. Annex 18 identifies the towns in which the partnership will operate. The following provides details of realized and potential partnerships. UNHABITAT has fielded a full time settlement improvement advisor to manage output 2 (living environment improvement) and increased the number of its settlement improvement field staff. It also has replaced its Senior Human Settlement Officer with an officer with prior long term and relevant experience in Bangladesh and is working closely with UPPR management. UNICEF is supporting the UKAID-funded, DPHEimplemented SHEWAB Programme under the MLGRDC. UPPR and SHEWAB both cover Rangpur and Sirajganj and both include water and sanitation components. UPPR initiated discussions to establish a formal partnership with SHEWAB in order to improve aid effectiveness, an initiative that was supported by UKaid. In the draft MoU, UPPR will deliver the hardware components including latrines and tubewells; SHEWAB will provide the software components including hygiene promotion, water quality assurance, solid waste management, and WATSAN in schools; and SHEWAB will use UPPR’s CAP process to integrate its own activities. The strategic benefits of this partnership include: concrete collaboration between UNICEF and UNDP with the potential for scale-up; a model of cooperation between DPHE & LGED in urban areas; supporting SHEWAB to achieve its targets; strengthening UPPR’s hygiene promotion activities; and broadening CAPs to include non-UPPR-specific activities.

ILO and UPPR are negotiating an agreement covering the following areas of collaboration: developing of local economic development strategies; making community infrastructure work more labor-intensive and linked to other economic opportunities; converting the existing apprenticeship programme into more comprehensive support to obtain decent jobs with systematic skills and labor market support; introducing proven entrepreneurship programmes that improve self-employment opportunities; and integrating child labor issues. The work will proceed in phases. An initial assessment phase will include value-chain-analysis and participatory appraisal tools and techniques that would provide quantitative and qualitative information from a range of stakeholders. The assessments will include rapid workplace assessment, marketing and labor demand survey and institutional mapping for skills and training. In addition, but separate from the above, UPPR and ILO’s Technical, Vocational Education and Training (TVET) Reform Project are partnering to pilot test ILO’s Community Based (CB) Training for Economic Empowerment (TREE) method in selected UPPR communities. CB-TREE is a needs-based methodology for promoting income-generation through skills-training and supportservices in particular socio-economic circumstances. The partnership will also explore a systematic approach to helping underprivileged groups (women and girls, poorly-educated, indigenous groups and the disabled) access the TVET system through more viable and relevant (market-driven) training programs in skilled trades. This new initiative will increase UPPR’s capacity to offer more meaningful and sustainable employment for underprivileged and marginalised groups highlighting the relevant skills and trainings in demand by local industry and employers in the business community. UNHCR was administering refugee camps for about 250,000 Biharis or "stranded Pakistanis" living in 70 camps across the country, most of whom were born in Bangladesh. The programme’s Dhaka project has initiated activities in a Bihari community of 2000 households, as advocated by UNHCR and DFID, with plans to expand into other Bihari camps. WFP has sponsored an urban food security study in Bangladesh, which has informed the design of the UPPR’s baseline survey, and is engaged in a food supplement programme in selected Dhaka schools. UPPR has held initial discussions with WFP, who may be interested in partnering, and more are planned. UNDP-supported Police Reform Programme (Community Policing Component) has a strategy that

UNICEF visit to Diara-2 CDC in Narayanganj

26 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

UPPR Programme Manager Richard Geier and UNDP Programme Analyst Ashekur Rahman accompanying Mr. Hidaki Kagohashi and Mr. Julius Motto from ILO in a visit to Burma Colony CDC in Chittagong.

UPPR Project Director Mr. Ali Ahmed and Programme Manager Mr Richard Geier during the MOU signing ceremony with NDBUS.

includes: community mobilisation; capacity building of community and police; ward awareness programmes; community action plans; school-based interventions at primary and high school levels; and leadership development and M&E. PRP and UPPR have drafted a MoU in which CDC members will be engaged as local security wardens and the local police will support integration of security-related concerns into UPPRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CAP process. The MoU will cover partnerships in five towns including Chittagong, Rajshahi, Khulna, Barisal, and Sylhet.

ment and capacity to deliver municipal services, especially to the poor. UPPR and UGIIP-2 will collaborate in the eight cities in common and on the national level to advocate policies and strategies toward urban poverty reduction. Cooperation extends to all the staff of both projects including international and national consultants, and national and local level government staff. UPPR will take the lead in the support to CDCs and in advocating and supporting pro-poor policy development; UGIIP2 will lead in the support of local governments; and both will work toward the integration of CDCs and local government. That partnership has already been realised in solid waste management in Mymensingh, and GIS mapping of settlements and the emergency response to a slum fire in Narayanganj.

FAO had been a partner with LPUPAP and is interested in exploring a potential partnership with UPPR. CARE and UPPR have negotiated an agreement that comprises the following activities in Savar, Comilla, Rangpur and Gazipur: (i) provide market-oriented training to create employment for about 1000 extreme poor women in small and medium enterprises in the handicrafts sector; (ii) enhance the business, financial and marketing management capacities of beneficiaries, particularly women; (iii) provide technical and vocational training to approximately 2,500 poor and extreme poor and create access to wage employment; (iv) train 120 extreme poor urban women as sales agents to earn sustainable income from sales commission; (v) train 6,000 beneficiaries in comprehensive homestead gardening and 4,000 beneficiaries in backyard mushroom production; and (vi) facilitate process documentation and the dissemination of learning amongst relevant stakeholders for future replication and scale-up. Urban Governance Infrastructure Improvement Project (UGIIP-2) is a GoB-executed, ADB loan- and KfW grant-funded, LGED-implemented, GTZ-assisted project in 35 Pourashavas and runs from 2009 to 2016. The project improves urban governance, delivers urban infrastructure and services, enhances municipal manage-

NDBUS is a Dhaka-based NGO, formed by community leaders of slums, that supports the interests of urban poor slum dwellers through livelihood development and socio-economic advancement. It represents about 1.5 million people residing in slums through a network of ward and primary committees. It presently benefits from support of the URBIS programme-implemented by CUS and DIG, a US-consultancy, with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Following the signing of the MoU, NDBUS has so far advised the UPPR Dhaka project on settlement selection, shared its householdmember database, taken responsibility for mobilising 2000 households of a Bihari slum into a CDC, and is helping to pilot the censuses in Korail slum. In addition, URBIS is developing a community-managed savings-and-credit programme for NDBUS that may also be appropriate for UPPRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CDCs. In turn, UPPR is providing on-the-job training and guidance to NDBUS team members. UPPRs strategy is to build the capacity of NDBUS in phases so that it can assume an increasing role in the project, leading to full project management.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 27

Coca-Cola Bangladesh, UNHABITAT and UPPR have signed an MoU for a project to construct or rehabilitate water and sanitation facilities and deliver a hygiene promotion programme in 30 schools serving UPPR’s CDCs in Comilla and Dhaka. Coke and UNHABITAT will donate USD 100,000 and USD 172,000 respectively, UPPR will mobilise and ensure community involvement, and another implementing partner will design the facilities, supervise construction and deliver hygiene promotion. Concern Worldwide is one of the few organisations in Bangladesh that addresses the needs of the homeless in urban areas. Their Amrao Manush project has established nine pavement dweller centres (PDC) that provide services such as day care, bathing and cooking facilities, resting places and lockers, health services, counseling, life skill education, and savings facilities. A draft MoU covers two areas: (i) developing three new PDCs in Dhaka, Tongi and Chittagong to provide daycare, shelter, and services to around 4,000 pavement dwellers and (ii) introducing new components into existing PDCs including block grants and apprenticeships, issuing identity cards, building linkages to the police, and mobilising communities and philanthropists to support the homeless. In addition, UPPR will replicate the homeless services in other towns and modify its multipurpose centres designs to use as mini-PDCs for night shelter. Practical Action (PA) is an international NGO with decades of experience in designing and implementing intermediate, appropriate technology solutions for developing country contexts. In Bangladesh, it has implemented a successful integrated slum upgrading project in Faridpur and solid waste activities in Mymensingh and Dhaka. The strategic benefits of partnering with PA is to introduce their community based waste management system; improved, smokeless stoves using alternative fuels; improved drain and pavement solutions; and integrated community centers. Urban Primary Health Care Project, funded by GOB and several donors including DFID, covers all six city corporations and five municipalities including three that are under UPPR: Comilla, Savar and Sirajganj. Its goal is to improve the health status of the urban population, especially the poor and extreme poor, through improved access to and utilisation of efficient, effective and sustainable primary health care services. UPPR has proposed a partnership that would improve the effectiveness of both. The partnership would strengthen UPHCP’s poverty targeting, enhance its outreach and behaviour-change efforts, and improved its responsiveness to community needs. UPHCP will use UPPR’s

28 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

comprehensive survey results, engage CDC members as community health workers to raise awareness and to provide basic community-level heath care, and use its monitoring system to measure the impact of UPPR’s environmental health activities, which will also identify disease patterns. Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre and UPPR are drafting an MoU that will establish a disaster risk reduction component in UPPR. The MoU is likely to include: training on community-based emergency response; community-based risk assessment (hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessment); integration of disaster reduction issues into community action plans; and community-based demonstration projects (livelihood, settlement improvement and infrastructure development focused). Coalition for the Urban Poor is a potential partner in policy influencing, being the only organised civil society/NGO network with a track record. They have worked on eviction and land tenure issues and can be engaged for national level campaigning and mobilising civil society. CUP can also link to the project’s federations as part of the phase-out strategy. MATT-2 is a joint initiative of the GoB and DFID to develop reformed human resource management systems within the Bangladesh Civil Service as an important building block for incremental administrative reform. It also aims to ensure that GoB policies & programmes are citizen-focused and more effective in meeting needs of the poor and women. MATT’s approach is to engage its participants in the design and implementation of Performance Improvement Projects, a number of which could be upscaled to contribute to urban poverty reduction. UPPR and MATT are exploring partnership options. Bangladesh Development Institute (BDI) has been working with a consortium and running an action research program on water sanitation program in slums. It has submitted a proposal for expanding its research program to five slums of UPPR. UCEP and UPPR are partnering in Chittagong, and Rangpur. While the project has visited UCEP headquarters, and had two meetings to discuss partnership possibilities, it has yet to further these discussions. Bangladesh Computer Council and UPPR are collaborating in a survey of households and households members in Korail Slum in Dhaka. UPPR has designed the survey instrument and will implement the survey while BCC will design the data entry and database system and enter and ensure the quality of the data.

Local Partnerships

Local partnerships can be subdivided into those with stakeholders that are external to UPPR structure and those that are internal, such as with the town- and ward-level committees. External partnerships Annex 19 provides information about the formalised, local-level partnerships with UPPR in 17 towns. In addition to these, the towns have partnerships in which the partner is not receiving project funds, as well as partnerships that have been discussed but not yet formed. The project has been reviewing and streamlining those partnerships to make them more effective and coordinated. One of the most unique partnerships under the project is that with Shurer Dhara, an established school for teaching traditional music and a centre for promoting the cultural life of the community. UPPR and Shurer Dhara signed a mini-grant for a one-year project, called Music for Development, with the objective of integrating deprived slum children into society. The project has selected 25 of the most promising slum children and is providing lessons in singing, performing arts theory and practice, sports and games, and computer skills. The project enhances the children’s capacity to act as social change agents, and makes their middle class colleagues and parents more sympathetic toward them, their parents, and the situation in slums. Internal Partnerships At the city and pourashava levels, the Project Coordination Committees (PCC), with representatives from relevant agencies, monitor and coordinate the progress of the project activities. The Mayors head the Committee, the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Engineer acts as member secretary, and the project team and representatives from the CDCs and ward commissioners participate as members. The committees meet to review the progress of the project and approve the CAPs. Project

funds are disbursed to the CDCs through the local government. The towns open separate bank accounts for SIF and SEF under the signatures of the City/Pourashava Mayor and the Member Secretary. At the Ward level, the Project Implementation Committee (PIC) coordinates and monitors the project activities. The Ward Councillor chairs the Committee while the female ward commissioner is the vice chairperson. This committee meets once every month. The PICs facilitate preparation of the CAPs, help to implement the community contracts, and maintain links between the CDCs and the local government. Their role is particularly important for construction of footpaths, drainage, community centres and electric light posts.

Communications

The project imitated several strategic initiatives to improve communications to the public and to key stakeholders including a website, case studies, one-page policy briefs, brochure, posters and calendars. UPPR website, http://www.upprbd.org, was designed with technical assistance of the UNDP’s Access to Information Programme in the Prime Minister’s Office. The site includes information about the project and is updated regularly by the communications and documentations expert with the project news and events. Videos. UPPR together with the UNDP communication team has produced a video on ‘Urban Apprenticeships: Developing Skills For Life’. The video unveiled some of the ground realities and success stories of apprentices in Narayanganj. Available on UNDP’s global website, this video is one of the most-viewed on the website, with over 3,000 hits within three months. Another video on the project activities in Gopalganj focuses on the CDC eviction. It contains live footage of the eviction in progress and on the subsequent activities to address the issue. On-the-Ground is a series of two-page case studies that highlight project outcomes from the point of view of beneficiaries. To date four issues have been produced covering an urban food producer, a mini-grocer, a tailor, and a carpenter. One-Pagers are a series of policy briefs to highlight project ideas and tools in a ‘bite size’ document. To date these cover settlement and land mapping, emergency response, homeless mapping, extreme poverty strategy, and Well-Being Assessment.

UPPR booth in the Extreme Poverty Eradication Day, Bangabandhu International Convention Centre

The Project Brochure has been redesigned and is distributed in all workshops. A Desk Calendar for 2010 highlights both features of the Project, such as community action plans, as well as important policy messages, including anti-eviction advocacy.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 29

Posters have been prepared for Extreme Poverty Day, International Women’s Day, and World Habitat Day. DFID guidance for preparing logframes advocates that projects should have titles so that “All stakeholders can quickly and easily understand what the project is about.” Project management considered that the present title, Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction Project, was too long and not clear; the initiative was not forging “urban partnerships” nor was it concerned with “poverty reduction” in general; it was forging “partnerships” to reduce “urban poverty”. Management also found that most community people knew of the initiative only by its acronym ‘UPPR’ without knowing what this stood for. To understand how stakeholders felt about the title,

management conducted a web-based survey of stakeholders. Some 49 percent of the 41 respondents did not like the name, 30 percent liked it, and 22 percent neither liked nor disliked it. Some 88 percent said that the term “programme” was preferable to “project”. Some 47 percent preferred the title “Urban Poverty Reduction Programme”, 29 percent preferred “Urban Poverty Programme” and 23 percent preferred the present name. Typical comments included “the title is too long” and “community people do not recognise this name; partnerships are not needed because all development consists of partnerships”. The project plans to seek the guidance of the Project Steering Committee on this issue.

Reducing Extreme Urban Poverty: Strategic Approaches and Action Background To beneﬁt three million urban poor, particularly women and girls in 30 towns and cities in Bangladesh the Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction (UPPR) project mobilises and supports poor communities to plan, implement and monitor improvements in their living conditions. Project implementation is being done in partnership with Pourashavas (towns), city corporations and other stakeholders. UPPR recognises that diﬀerent groups of extreme poor are often excluded from poverty reduction programmes unless they are systematically targeted and interventions are designed and delivered suitably. UPPR has developed a comprehensive methodology for targeting extreme poor individuals and households and those living in most vulnerable settlements; and a set of strategic actions for strengthening the extreme poor focus in its program implementation, town level institutional practices and national policies.

self-developed criteria, to distinguish extreme poor, moderate poor and non-poor in slum areas; and ii) a community-led non–slum mapping to locate the homeless and disabled people in every project town and city. b) Strengthens the extreme poor focus in UPPR implementation and project management systems through: i) improving representation and participation in community organizations and community-based coordination committees; ii) adopting extreme poor-focused community action planning; iii) the provisions and delivery mechanisms of the Socioeconomic Funds and Settlement Improvement Funds; and iv) program budgeting, monitoring and knowledge management systems. c) Holds Community Development Committees (CDC) and ward councilors accountable for institutional capacity building.

Key strategies Based on documented best practices and extensive consultations with a range of stakeholders, including the extreme urban poor, UPPR has formulated a three-tiered strategy for reducing extreme urban poverty. Activities are carried out at the micro (settlement), meso (town) and macro (national) levels.

2. Town level strategies To ensure the sustainability of the program UPPR carries out the following town level activities:

1. Settlement level strategies In order to target, enable and track the program beneﬁts at the settlement level UPPR carries out the following activities:

b) Develops the institutional capacities of the towns and city corporations to address the needs of the extreme poor.

a) Identiﬁes the extreme poor of diﬀerent vulnerable populations through i) a community driven participatory wellbeing analysis, using

a) Develops linkages between CDCs and town level institutions that provide services for the extreme poor.

c) Strengthens the participation of the extreme poor in town-level decision-making forums.

The foci of the strategy are as follows:

3. Macro –level strategies To create an enabling policy environment for extreme urban poverty reduction initiatives UPPR carries out the following activities:

Micro: Targeting, enabling and monitoring the extreme poor’s access to project services and beneﬁts;

a) Partners with other social safety net programs supported by Government, other UN agencies, and international donors.

Meso: Making project beneﬁts sustainable by promoting institutional linkages and inclusive institutional practices;

b) Supports and facilitates national level policy initiatives for extreme urban poverty reduction (e.g. Media fellowships on extreme urban poverty; tool kits on extreme urban poverty for MPs, Mayors and councilors; awards to towns for successful initiatives to reduce extreme urban poverty.

Macro: Creating an enabling policy environment for the extreme urban poor through partnerships, networking and advocacy.

30 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Output 5: Project Management Planning

The project prepared an Action Plan covering the period from June 2009 through March 2010. Although there has been some slippage, most of the activities have been completed as planned. A standard town-level annual planning format has been designed and planning for 2010 is proceeding (Annex 30 Town Annual Workplan 2010).

Management Meetings

Four kinds of formal meetings took place in UPPR in 2009. These were meetings of the Project Steering Committee, Project Board, the Project Management Team, and the Coordination Team. A Project Steering Committee meeting was held in September. At least four Project Board (comprised of the National Project Director, the UNDP Programme Officer, and the International Project Manager) meetings took place in March, July, and September. Seven Project Management Team (comprised of the National Project Director, 3 Deputy National Project Directors, International Project Manager, Operations Manager, and the National Project Coordinator) meetings took place through December 2009. A new coordination team was established â&#x20AC;&#x201C; with members comprising all national and international managers, advisors, and experts â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and its first meeting held in January 2010. Informal, issue-based meetings also take place regularly as required.

Planning and Staff Professional Development Workshops

The project held several planning professional development and information exchanges workshops for its professional field staff. These workshops were held for town managers, socio-economic experts and assistants, urban agriculture experts, and community organisers.

of the operations manager, national project coordinator, two deputy project directors and senior assistant engineer. Contracts approved by this committee are submitted for IPM and NPD approval.

Field Visits

Annex 26 shows the date, number, and purpose of field visits made by headquarters staff to specific towns. Representatives from other organisations that also visited field offices included UKaid, UNDP, ILO, UNICEF, GTZ, WaterAid, Practical Action, and Shurer Dhara. In 2009, Mr Stefan Priesner UNDP Country Director, Mr. Robert Juhkam Deputy Country Director (Programme) and Mr. SK Murthy Deputy Country Director (Operations) visited several UPPR field sites and met with CDC members and project counterparts. In early January 2010, the UK Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the British High Commissioner, and other representatives from UKaid, visited the UPPR project in Sylhet, held talks with the Mayor and three CDC leaders, and participated in the signing of the MoU between the Mayor and the project. Honorable State Minister for Labor and Employment, Ms. Begum Monnujan Sufian, visited the UPPR activities in Kushtia. Honorable Minister of Finance, Dr. Abul Maal Abdul Muhit, joined the UPPR briefing workshop in Sylhet City Corporation as the Chief Guest. Mr. A K M Mozammel Huq, MP, Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee for Land and Engr. Md. Wahidur Rahman Chief Engineer LGED visited the UPPR activities in Gopalganj.

Monitoring

In 2009, the project started to revise its M&E system while maintaining the existing system as a backup. It has developed a new M&E framework that covers input and output monitoring, outcome monitoring, and impact assessment. It is revising the existing 20 forms that are required to be completed by town teams on a monthly or quarterly basis. Prior to 2009, the community contracts were only reviewed and approved by the Project Manager and Project Director. In 2009, the project strengthened the community contract approval process and formed a community contracts evaluation committee that consists

Challish Bari CDC sharing their CAP with UNDP Country Director Mr. Stefan Priesner in Mymensingh

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 31

In April 2009, in response a threat letter from Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh, a terrorist group, against the UN offices in Barisal, the Regional Security Adviser conducted a thorough security risk assessment of UPPR offices Chittagong, Comilla, Barisal, Sirajganj, Bogra, Rangpur and Dinajpur. The adviser submitted an in-depth risk assessment report and recommendations to UNDP management.

Table 7-2: Staffing Status

Management Information Systems

include GIS functions to identify and map the project interventions.

The project compiled and analysed LPUPAP data, yielding valuable insights into the detailed results of LPUPAP and establishing a baseline to distinguish UPPR delivery from LPUPAP. Prior to 2009, project data was collected and maintained in a spreadsheet format. The data had been managed by cut-and-past from 20 different M&E forms which were submitted by each town team on a monthly and quarterly basis. There had been no verification of the data that had been entered and it had not been possible to generate summary reports in useful formats. The project therefore undertook to design and establish an integrated management information system (MIS) to support improved data management, monitoring, information sharing, reporting and support to decisionmaking Its components include management of community contracts, financial management, procurement and asset management, and human resources management The new MIS provides reliable and up-to-date information on the diverse project activities. It serves as an essential management tool for regularly assessing the state of programme and operations activities, measuring achievements against deadlines and benchmarks, identifying potential constraints and taking corrective actions. Phase I of MIS development is completed and the system has been running off-line. In Phase II, the system will go online and will be linked to the uppr.bd domain to enable the staff to email their supervisors on the progress made on various operational activities. In addition, it will

Contract

Target

Type

Status as of

Total

end 2009

UNDP

377

GOB Total

Recruited in 2009

357

95%

278

113

84%

490

452

92%

330

UNHABITAT Field Missions. In 2009, there were three missions to Bangladesh from the Senior Human Settlement Officer of the UNHABITAT, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (Table 7-1). The UNHABITAT officer-in-charge of UPPR was changed from Jan Meeuwissen to Lalith Lankatilleke in September. Missions usually coincided with an important event such as the PSC meeting or external review. Each mission visited a number of towns and prepared mission reports.

Management Review

A three member team lead by Mr. Douglas Saltmarshe of DFID conducted a management review of UPPR in last part of May in 2009. Most of the recommendations made by the team are implemented.

Human Resources

In 2009, UPPR has successfully filled 95 percent of its UNDP positions, 84 percent of the GoB positions, and 92 percent of the positions overall. Table 7-2 summarises the status as of end 2009. Over 15,000 job applications were received and screened in 2009. The project maintained a highly competitive and transparent selection process. A total of 278 UNDP staff and 52 GoB staff were recruited during 2009. Staff recruitment proved to be a formidable process. While suitable candidates were selected for almost all positions, some applicants declined the offer due to the unattractiveness of duty stations or offered remuneration. This

Table 7-1: UN-HABITAT Missions to UPPR Year 2008

Dates

Representative

4-15 Feb

Jan Meeuwissen

9-15 Jul

Jan Meeuwissen

9-16 Oct

Jan Meeuwissen

18-24 Feb

Jan Meeuwissen

2009

31-May 8-June

Jan Meeuwissen

1-7 Sep

Lalith Lankatilleke

2010

11-19 Jan

Lalith Lankatilleke

32 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

The DFID Management Review Mission meeting with Bolirhat Jelepara CDC in Chittagong.

Table 7-3: Formal Capacity Building Events SN Title of the Course

Days

Date

Participants Type # All 52

Organized By

Planning and Budget Workshop

15-Feb-09

UPPR

Planning and Budget Workshop

25-Feb-09

All

UPPR

Facing the Challenges of Climate Change, w/focus on water and waste Management

19-Jul-09

SEE

ITN-BUET

Design & Implementing Social Transfer Programmes

25-Oct-09

EPC

Thailand

Urban Sanitation and its Challenges

27-Oct-09

SEE

ITN-BUET

Asian and Pacific City Census Data Analysis

1-Dec-09

M&E

Thailand

Exposure visit to Thailand on Land Tenure

20-Dec-09

AIT

Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction

25-Jan-10

UPPR

Specialized course on Solid waste Management

15-Feb-10

SIA.SEE

ITN-BUET

1/ MP, PD, DPD, NPC, TC, DC, Mayor, TM, SEE, CDC Leader

required the project to repeat the selection process twice and sometimes thrice. Annex 32 shows UPPR staffing status in HQ and field level as of end 2009. All vacant posts are expected to be filled early in 2010. Annex 31 identifies the filled and vacant positions in the town level. The project started the process to develop a roster of suitable candidates to fill positions required by expansion into new towns and staff resignations. It also implemented a formal capacity building project, summarised in table 7-3. The project hosted number of international short-term advisers in 2009, including UNDP Senior Interim Management Adviser, Mr. Jean-Claude Rogivue, to assist the project during the transitional period from March to

June 2009 prior to the joining of the new International Project Manager in July 09.

Budget and Delivery by Major Outputs

The project budget for 2009 was US$12.2 million. A total of US$900,000 is funded by UNDP and US$11.3 million funded by UKaid. The total expenditure during the reporting period was US$10.9 million, which is 90 percent of the 2009 budget (Table 7-4). Table 7-5 below shows that the project spent 38 percent of the budget on settlement improvement through UNHABITAT, 26 percent on socio-economic development, 14 percent on national staff salaries, 5 percent on learning programmes (NEX), 2 percent on equipment and furniture, 2 percent on international ALD staff,

Table 7-4: Project Budget Delivery by Output in USD Output Budget 2009 Output 1: Urban poor communities* mobilized to form 664,949 representative and inclusive subgroups and prepare community action plans

Expenditure 2009

Percent Delivery

567,920

Output 2: Poor urban communities* have healthy and secure living environments

4,295,702

4,478,503

104

Output 3: Urban poor and extremely poor people acquire the resources, knowledge and skills to increase their incomes and assets

3,296,535

3,318,763

101

557,786

243,619

Output 5: Technical assistance and project management

2,672,554

1,739,351

GMS

741,127 12,228,653

648,796 10,996,952

88 90

Output 4: Partnerships and city/urban development models/strategies developed to influence pro-poor local and national level policies and practices

TOTAL

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 33

Table 7-5: Expenditure breakdown per output and per budgetary description Description

Output 1

Output 2

Output 3

Output 4

Output 5

Total

Learning Cost

191,608

30,290

80,266

146,298

93,643

542,105

National Staff

376,312

219,786

385,737

4,974

532,034

1,518,843

46,545

17,182

71,584

168,281

Int Consultant SIF

303,592

4,181,882

2,835,578

264,656

8,617 69,576

8,617 90,339

0 1

80,980

4,181,882

SEF

2,835,578

ALD Cost Local Consultants Travel

20,763

Contract Companies

168,487

IT Equipment

57,616

Miscellaneous

109,837

O&M

Equip & Furniture

100,282

Supplies

35,232

Printing

50,110

648,796

1,739,351

10,996,952

100

GMS Total

567,920

4,478,503

3,318,763

3 percent on international consultants, and 5 percent on travel, O&M, IT equipment, contractual services companies and others. Project delivery at July 2009, prior to the joining of the Project Manager, was around 20 percent. Thus 70 percent of the above figures were delivered between July and December 2009. As requested by UNDP, DFID transferred the third installment UKÂŁ1,500,000 (equivalent to 2,155,172) to UNDP on March 2009. The fourth installment of UKÂŁ 3,500,000 (equivalent to US$5,728,314) was received in October 2009. On March 2009, UNDP transferred UN-HABITAT with total US$2,317,590.45 to carryout output 2 activities. The

34 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

243,619

next installment of US$2,317,590.45 was transferred in September 2009. In April 2009, the Foreign Aided Projects Audit Directorate (FAPAD) conducted a Financial and Compliance Audit of the Project expenditure for 2008 including a) disbursements listed in the Quarterly Financial Reports; b) direct payments processed by UNDP; and c) GOB budgetary allocation. The FAPAD report stated full compliance of the programme financial management in accordance with the financial rules, regulations, practices and procedures of both UNDP and GoB. The audit made one observation which is being addressed by the UPPR operations team.

Risks and Future Plans Risks and Challenges The following risks have been identified. Managing expansion into new towns. Simultaneously reorienting the project from the LPUPAP approach to the new approach, while ensuring quality delivery in existing towns, and expanding to new towns, presents challenges. Covering new settlements and populations. Several towns have extended their official boundaries which then cover a larger poor population than had been estimated in the project document. Towns that have not extended their boundaries also have many poor settlements that are outside of town boundaries. Meanwhile, the new settlement mapping method is finding higher numbers and a higher diversity of settlements than first envisaged. Dealing with evictions and threats of eviction. Evictions have already resulted in a loss of Project investments an increase in poverty of affected households, a loss of trust in UPPR and government and a diversion of project resources to alleviate suffering of and to support a resettlement plan. New eviction threats are also consuming Project resources. Increasing participation in primary groups. Only 50 percent of households had been organised into primary groups under LPUPAP. While more (67%) households are now members of primary groups, several poor and extreme poor have not joined. Households not in primary groups are less likely to be included as beneficiaries of the SIF and SEF contracts. Improving performance of savings and credit groups. There are significant problems in the existing savings groups including high credit arrears, inactive savings accounts, and misuse of funds. Meeting the needs for settlement improvements. Many communities have chronic flooding problems that, although identified as a priority in CAPs, have not been adequately addressed through community contracts. Meeting this need may be beyond the resources of the Project and may also require town-level drainage system improvements. Improving infrastructure design. The design of individual infrastructure items has been too standardised and is not being adapted to the physical context. For example, high density settlements get one latrine per

three households, where a communal latrine might be more appropriate; settlements at the periphery with village-like environments get wide, straight, concreted footpaths where a more informal paving system would be better. Addressing elite capture of benefits. CDC leaders have, in some cases, received more Project benefits than others â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for example, their own latrine or a water point adjacent to their house. Benefiting from contract management fees, some leaders resist splitting up large CDCs, and giving up their positions in a new election. Improper use of funds. With significant SIF and SEF funds flowing through local governments and CDCs, there is a risk that funds will be diverted from their intended use. In some cases SEF grants have been used to pay off credit arrears. Over-burdened SIF staff. With 565 communitycontracts totaling Tk 286 million and only 21 SIF staff (4 experts and 17 assistants), each staff member on average is expected to manage 27 community contracts that in total include 365 latrines, over four kilometers of footpaths and 1.5 kilometers of drains, and over 48 tubewells. This level of workload-perperson may be too high to ensure adequate performance of these contracts. In addition, the workload of SIF staff varies considerably across the towns. Mitigation measures may include redistribution of staff, staff capacity building, and recruitment of additional staff.

Future Plans Output 1 The following key activities are planned for 2010: 1. Prepare for expansion into seven more towns by recruiting and training staff in advance and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;twinningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; them with experienced staff in existing towns before deploying to new towns; 2. Complete settlement mapping of all towns, revise town-wise mobilisation targets, revise settlement selection, CDC formation and support policies to better target vulnerable settlements; 3. Form cross community associations of extremepoor-only; youth (Annex 20), disabled, and others to increase the number and diversity of opportunities to participate, particularly by the poor households that have not joined primary groups;

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 35

4. Strengthen CDC, cluster, and federation governance mechanisms to make them representative, transparent and accountable; ensure annual meetings and elections; 5. Strengthen existing savings-and-credit groups and begin to establish community development funds or banks, based on the model proven successful in Nepal and Sri Lanka, and link them to the PKSF; 6. Redesign and strengthen CAP process to improve decision-making based on data, engage and better target poor and extreme poor, become more transparent, include non-project service providers (particularly local governments), widen the menu of identified actions, and engage ward councilors and town-level officers; 7. Prepare a CDC and town phase-out strategy that will, among others, assess the poverty status and phaseout readiness, prepare a post-project community action plan, establish other funding sources (including from community accounts, local government, civil society and NGOs), and build capacity of selected community leaders; 8. Improve security of tenure through community land purchase or leasing, land sharing, and, where necessary, voluntary relocation; strengthen negotiating capacity and position of communities; 9. Begin to make the project less a ‘project’ and more a ‘movement’ of the communities that are supported by the Project, by forming more clusters and federations so that they are more empowered and have greater voice to influence the decision making process of the city; Output 2 The following actions are planned for 2010: 1. Ensure all assets have been and are being delivered as planned by mapping the physical location and working status of assets delivered under LPUPAP and UPPR, repairing those that are damaged or inoperative, constructing those not yet constructed, and monitoring implementation against the WBA; 2. Improve the menu of physical improvements by: • assessing pilot initiatives and upscaling best practices such as solid-waste-management, multipurpose/day care centers, market-centers, integrated footpaths and drains, higher house plinths, and energy-efficient smokeless cookstoves; • redesigning assets to better cater to children and disabled, extend asset life, and reduce their costs; • reviewing and including UNICEF’s supported water and sanitation programme in schools for possible scaling-up in UPPR project;

36 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

3. Improved linkages to output 3 by (i) providing apprenticeships in trades (such as masons) needed to deliver SIF contracts; (ii) using SIF to improve urban agriculture infrastructure like ponds, irrigation systems; (iii) developing labour intensive infrastructure approaches to create employment; including water quality, safety, and conservation as well as hygiene promotion; 4. Improve O&M management through (i) assessment of maintenance requirements; (ii) development of O&M plans identifying specific actions by specific actors for specific infrastructures with specific funds; (iii) capacity building of community; (iv) clarifying use of O&M fund; 5. Make the budget go farther by requiring less-poor households to contribute to construction costs; revising planning standards to be context-sensitive (e.g. use communal latrines in high-density settlements instead of shared-latrines, or restrict width of concrete footpaths in less dense settlements); focusing on links to town-level systems particularly drainage systems but also mains water supply, electricity, transport, and waste management; reducing management fees to CDC leaders or share management responsibilities with other CDC members; 6. Revise implementation guidelines to include the above. Output 3 The following actions are planned for 2010: 1. Implement, review and improve existing programmes including apprentices, block grants, education support, and social development; 2. Implement new, planned initiatives by partners from ILO and CARE including local economic development plans; monitor and assess these initiatives and upscale best practices throughout Project; 3. Design and implement new programmes to: improve access to health care services, address social problems, and engage youth (see Annex 20); 4. Review and refine implementation guidelines based on the above. Output 4 The following actions are planned for 2010: 1. Address land tenure security issues through a combination of research, events, partnerships, and publication as follows: • Research will include completion of the settlement and vacant land maps, an urban land management and administration study, a desk study comparing global pro-poor urban land policies, and participation in the formulation of

national land zoning laws initiated by the Ministry of Land and UNDP; • Events will include a national workshop to disseminate settlement and vacant land mapping results, and international conference on improving security of land tenure/housing rights, and a series of multi-stakeholder consultations on the components of a pro-poor urban land policy; • Partnerships will include that with CUP for policy advocacy; with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Land to inform and sensitise them on land tenure situation; with ACHR to improve knowledge of tenure security successes in other countries; and with the media to improve public awareness; • Publications will include the settlement and vacant land surveys in 30 towns; the UPPR Baseline Survey; the desk study results; and the experience in addressing the eviction in Gopalganj and the eviction threat in Korail. 2. Implement the extreme poverty strategy at all three levels; • Micro-level (CDC): (i) revise implementation guidelines to strengthen extreme poor focus and (ii) document lessons from the pilot interventions for up-scaling, • Meso-level (Town): (iii) sponsor exposure visits of the Mayors and other town level stakeholders to observe the best practices for addressing the issues of homeless and for conditional cash transfer and (iv) develop strategies and mechanisms for linking CDCs, especially the extreme poor, with available services in the towns, • Macro-level: (v) hold a workshop on homeless mapping and town level resource mapping with Mayors, BBS, homeless people and NGOs working with homeless and (vi) provide media fellowships to young serving journalists to write stories regularly on urban poverty, especially extreme urban poverty 3. Strengthen general pro-poor policy influencing through support to UNDP’s co-chairing of the LCG Urban sector group, through the planning and organising of a ‘Bangladesh Urban Innovation Fair’; through a study on rural-urban linkages; and through documentation and dissemination of the results of UPPRs baseline studies; 4. Complete the urban poverty reduction website including the urban poverty reduction ‘solution exchange’; 5. Begin preparation of town level poverty reduction strategies.

Output 5 The following actions are planned for 2009: 1. Improve baseline and M&E through the following: • Complete all participatory baseline surveys and random household surveys in all active towns, design and undertake further thematic studies to deepen understanding, and disseminate findings; • Design and implement an impact and user/beneficiary satisfaction survey for SIF and SEF components; • Finalise the MIS that includes a streamlined town reporting system that tracks CAPs, community-contracting and other inputs and outputs, and beneficiaries at the individual, household, primary group, CDC, ward, cluster and town levels and disaggregates types of benefits received, all using GIS and web-based databases; • Integrate the current routine and adhoc field visit monitoring and reporting system into the MIS and M&E systems to ensure that CDCs, households, and individuals receive the required support; 2. Strengthen institutional capacity of UPPR and LGED staff by designing and implementing a staff training plan; reviewing human resource structure and revise if required; and recruiting more female staff members; 3. Improve the project’s internal control framework.

Community Planning Workshop at Korail slum in Dhaka.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 37

This is a one pager article published by UPPR

Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction

UPPR

The Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction aims at improving the livelihoods and living conditions of 3 million urban poor and extreme poor people in Bangladesh, especially women and girls, during the period 2007-2015. US$120 million is being provided for this purpose on a cost sharing basis by DFID and UNDP. The implementing partners are LGED, UNDP, UN-Habitat and respective Municipalities and City Corporations.

A space within the community: Three tales of acceptance, rehabilitation and recovery Ume Salma welcomes the crowd of people into the front room of her house warmly enough, responding to the greetings politely but with some reserve. While this is in part due to the presence of strangers in her house, it is also a reflection of the difficulty of the journey her life has taken her up until this point. Ume’s life has been far from easy. Like many other young women in Bangladesh, she was married at a very young age. When she was 15 she was married to a local police officer, leaving school to stay at home. They had two children before her husband divorced her over problems he had with dowry payments. Ume is now living with her parents, separated from her children and the ex-husband who has now remarried Given this, it is hardly surprising that Ume is somewhat hesitant when we crowd into her room. Yet, it would not be wise to presume that this difficult start has gotten the better of her. With the financial support of one of the Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction programme’s (UPPR) back-to-school grants, she has been able to recommence her studies with vigour. Indeed, looking around this small room and hearing her speak it is evident that Ume is committed to making her life better. Schoolbooks cover the small desk in one corner, and when asked about what she wishes to do after finishing high school she tells us that she wants to study further at university.

Across town, Nijamul’s face lights up as we meet him on the street in Mymensingh in northern Bangladesh. The cement truck that he now drives stands behind him. He greets the Community Development Committee (CDC) members with a broad smile and open arms, returning the warmth they clearly show for him. Yet, not so long ago, Nijamul’s did not smile often, and the community of which he is a part and in which he now works, was not so warm towards him. Until recently, Nijamul was struggling with a drug addiction that aside from the debilitating effects it had on his body and mind left him ostracized from his community, beyond the reach of the help that he needed. With the support of the CDC, through the UPPR apprenticeships scheme, Nijamul is now working full-time on the cement truck. He earns between 200 and 400 taka a day, and is now working to help support his family. Most importantly, Nijamul has found a place within his community again. As a carpentry apprentice with UPPR, Alom is learning how to craft new objects daily. But for Alom, the opportunity to work – for the first time in his life – comes with an added bonus. Alom is mute and for much of his 19 years has had to deal with the physical and social hurdles this brings. Alom says he wants to be able to contribute to the family and help with his sister’s schooling costs. The training he is receiving through the apprenticeship program, as well as practical on-the-job skills and knowledge that he is developing through his work is helping him achieve this goal. As in Nijamul’s case, these opportunities are helping Alom find a place in his community. Surrounded by the wood shavings and off-casts, by the hammers, chisels, saws and varnish tins, Alom greets us with a smile. He answers our questions as best he can, turning to his colleagues when he requires further explanation. Like young men everywhere, Alom and his colleagues are playful and light hearted, poking fun at all the attention being heaped upon this rather shy and polite man. Yet, in their interactions, as indeed in the quiet confidence and determination on the face of Ume, and the broad smile and extended hands of Najimul, there can be seen something much more than just job or education opportunities. For each of these young residents of Mymensingh, life has been very hard from a very early age. Yet, with the combination of their own drive and strength, their local CDC’s have been able to harness the strength and support of their communities, and the opportunities provided by UPPR to offer them much more.

Alom with the tools of his new trade — carpentry — in his workshop in Mymensingh

Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction (UPPR) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) RDEC-LGED, Agargaon, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh Tel: 88 02 8156435 | Fax: 88 02 9139800 E-mail: uppr.hq@upprbd.org | Web: www.upprbd.org

38 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Whether supporting their hopes for education or their attempts at entering the workplace, UPPR grants through local CDCs and the communities they represent are oﬀering these young people and others like them the chance for rehabilitation and acceptance. It is a long process, one that involves changing perceptions as much as it does changing individual realities, but it is clear that this is a path being forged in the right direction.

The views expressed in this page are the authors’ and not necessarily those of the United Nations Development Programme or the Government of Bangladesh.

Annexes

Annex 1: Town Phasing Plan with mobilisation targets GoB Year, From July to June; UNDP Year Jan to Dec

Sl.

TOWN

2001 Pop

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Target Urban Poor Pop.

BGR

254,067

61,000

SRG

133,007

10,000

HBG

80,000

12,000

KST

120,000

19,000

GPG

104,003

24,000

MMS

375,312

116,000

16,000

116,000

BRL

365,059

105,000

RAJ

489,514

65,000

NRG

230,294

39,000

78,000

KLN

966,837

144,000

145,000

289,000

CTG

4,133,014

110,000

550,000

JSR

178,000

19,000

20,000

19,000

20,000

78,000

DNP

157,000

17,000

68,000

DHK

7,200,000

125,000

500,000

TNG

282,000

31,000

30,000

123,000

RNP

251,000

27,000

28,000

109,000

CML

168,000

18,000

19,000

18,000

73,000

SHT

356,440

39,000

NBG

153,000

22,000

23,000

22,000

67,000

TGL

128,000

18,000

19,000

56,000

61,000

65,000

130,000

38,000

155,000

SVR

125,000

18,000

54,000

GZP

124,000

18,000

54,000

NOG

123,000

18,000

54,000

PAB

116,000

16,000

17,000

50,000

SDP

110,000

16,000

48,000

FRP

99,000

14,000

15,000

43,000

CNP

95,000

13,000

14,000

41,000

FEN

90,000

13,000

39,000

SAT

86,000

12,000

13,000

37,000

JND

86,000

12,000

13,000

37,000

Operational Towns

40 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

3,080,000

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 41

Total

RAJ 54 0.7 11,690 216 373 92 1,052 316 30

82 31 127 22 382 1,547 4.1 862 15 18 68 11 49 54 845 98 753 12 16 87 739 98 18,373 1,490 55,969 4,538 3.0 180 2 87,683 487 2.8 691 6,426 693 5 45 38.4 6.3

33 0.6 5,273 160 298 79 668 351 53

55 1.0 5,539 101 360 89 560 230 41

MMS 415

RNP 54 15 62 14 285 1,147 4.0 390 7 18 25 7 46 41 366 94 388 7 18 99 363 94 8,224 1,186 15,512 2,236 1.9 149 3 50,663 340 3.3 818 3,065 284 5 54 12.7 1.1

BRL

52 18 67 15 341 1,287 3.8 319 6 20 29 6 36 43 294 92 314 5 15 98 295 94 5,630 1,221 3,062 664 0.5 92 2 32,531 354 1.8 486 1,712 645 10 27 6.5 2.2

NRG 37 71 3.2 6,458 91 2,065 499 1,031 520 50

22 3 13 5 142 589 4.1 119 2 20 8 5 76 62 98 82 115 2 20 97 96 83 2,929 1,288 6,108 2,686 2.1 71 3 6,458 91 2.1 499 601 37 5 85 7.9 1.4

31 0.6 7,414 239 251 67 630 289 46

3 1,317

49 30 111 36 602 2,257 3.7 547 9 17 46 11 31 41 522 95 547 9 17 100 522 95 16,120 1,783 25,941 2,869 1.6 122 2 60,490 496 2.1 960 3,028 345 10 86 40.3 18.8

BGR

CNP

DNP

CML

JSR

TNG

SHT

DHK

CTG

Annex 2: UPPR Overall Status and Progress in 2009 KLN

TABLE 1. Baseline information of LPUPAP up to September 2007 No. of CDCs 590 70 114 # household (UPPR) '000 193 13 30 Total Population (UPPR) ('000) 833 65 140 % of town Pop 4 1 12 HH/CDC (UPPR) 327 185 259 POP/CDC (UPPR) 1,412 927 1,229 POP/HH 4.3 5.0 4.7 PGs 5,455 627 1,187 PG Members (HH) '000 101 12 25 HH/PG 18 19 21 PG Population ('000) 484 60 121 PG/CDC 9 9 10 % of HH in PGs 52 92 84 % of POP in PGs 58 92 86 Female PGs 5,078 550 1,099 % Female PGs 93 88 93 SCGs 4,611 414 735 SCG Members (HH) '000 72 6 10 HH/SCG 16 14 14 % of PG with SCGs 85 66 62 Female SCGs 4,336 400 673 % Female SCGs 94 97 92 Total Amount (Tk) '000 97,953 8,157 11,609 Savings Per Mem 1,357 1,369 1,121 Total Amount (Tk) '000 181,314 11,220 18,131 Credit Per Mem 2,513 1,883 1,751 Credit/Savings 1.9 1.4 1.6 No. of Contracts 1,338 131 169 Contract/CDC 2 2 1 Total Value (Tk) '000 549,618 50,865 89,510 Value/Contract '000 411 388 530 Value/HH (UPPR) '000 2.8 3.9 3.0 Value/POP 660 784 639 Latrines 36,019 3,392 5,406 Tubewells 3,724 263 612 HH/Latrine 5 4 5 HH/Tubewell 52 49 48 Footpaths (m) '000 182.8 9.5 21.4 Drains (m) '000 51.9 3.2 6.8 Drain covers 1,581 Water_Reserviour 36 11 Bath_Room 449 3 7 Streetlights 1,367 Tubewell platforms 187 No. of Contracts 532 63 59 Contract/CDC 0.9 0.9 0.5 Total Value (Tk) '000 71,290 7,242 9,192 Value/Contract '000 134 115 156 Value/HH 369 559 311 Value/POP 86 112 66 Total Apprentice 7,222 637 899 Female Apprentice 2,894 220 370 % Female Apprent 40 35 41

CDC, HH & Population

Savings-Credit

Primary Groups

Groups

Crd. Sav.

SIF Information

SEF Information

SRG

KST

GPG

21 33 71 22 7 11 26 10 33 53 119 45 26 37 75 47 344 334 361 434 1,557 1,595 1,672 2,040 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.7 145 229 792 238 3 4 13 4 18 18 16 19 14 19 76 19 7 7 11 11 35 38 49 47 43 36 64 42 124 195 778 207 86 85 98 87 145 214 792 194 3 3 12 3 18 16 15 16 100 93 100 82 124 193 766 165 86 90 97 85 3,934 5,328 13,403 4,247 1,542 1,600 1,149 1,368 7,398 5,818 21,243 10,913 2,899 1,748 1,822 3,516 1.9 1.1 1.6 2.6 92 117 150 65 4 4 2 3 25,288 41,390 75,677 29,064 275 354 505 447 3.5 3.8 3.0 3.0 774 786 638 648 1,583 2,404 6,912 1,490 102 374 369 5 5 4 6 108 69 26 11.2 14.5 11.1 9.3 1.1 7.7 2.5 0.9 100 1,273 209 25 1 5 8 4 42 37 56 15 25 68 47 26 1.2 2.1 0.7 1.2 3,386 6,738 4,025 4,331 135 99 86 167 469 612 157 454 104 128 34 97 349 635 389 372 133 211 144 110 38 33 37 30

HBG

NOG

GZP

SVR

TGL

Total

CML

JSR

NRG

BRL

RNP

MMS 72 40 116 46 29 30 26 13 31 18 7 6 98 59 137 71 32 27 355 331 271 382 257 208 1,359 1,486 1,179 1,554 1,099 897 3.8 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.3 524 341 948 315 301 250 10 7 17 6 6 5 20 19 18 19 19 18 44 28 64 23 25 18 7 9 8 7 10 8 41 50 54 34 78 74 45 48 47 32 77 66 498 341 922 291 299 248 95 100 97 92 99 99 519 341 948 248 190 249 8 7 17 5 3 4 16 19 18 19 17 18 99 100 100 79 63 100 493 341 922 227 190 248 95 100 97 92 100 100 9,147 1,315 14,259 7,698 711 989 1,102 198 843 1,618 219 221 12,535 29,659 16,133 48 989 1,510 1,753 3,391 15 221 1.4 2.1 2.1 0.1 1.0 175 14 279 142 24 24 2.4 0.4 2.4 3.1 0.8 0.8 82,237 9 109,996 37,100 8,800 10,736 470 1 394 261 367 447 3,219 1 3,495 2,111 1,182 1,720 841 0 805 519 276 399 2,826 54 4,727 1,070 440 379 1,212 13 537 84 12 99 9 245 7 16 17 16 21 1,018 59 209 620 63 11 5 23 21 0 0 3 2 3 6 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 415 0 31 0 0 0 0 40 0 69 0 0 10 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 65 175 204 40 65 2.9 1.6 1.5 4.4 1.4 2.2 59,997 5,998 33,940 24,616 3,350 4,011 286 92 194 121 84 62 2.3 0.5 1.1 1.4 0.5 0.6 613 101 248 344 105 149 1,749 387 1,756 2,244 203 244 706 247 877 1,086 107 152 40 64 50 48 53 62

BGR

CNP

DNP 32 15 65 9 4 38 46 19 160 288 250 592 1,442 1,250 2,457 5.0 5.0 4.2 347 159 739 6 3 13 17 19 18 46 15 66 11 11 11 64 82 34 100 82 41 347 159 714 100 100 97 301 98 739 5 2 13 18 18 18 87 62 100 301 98 714 100 100 97 1,184 73 21,968 223 42 1,664 0 73 39,676 42 3,006 1.0 1.8 17 188 0.5 2.9 8,575 105,569 504 562 929 2,746 186 661 476 3,673 22 435 19 10 419 88 0 0 65 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 54 1,520 0 0 250 0 0 4 0 0 0 53 146 1.7 2.2 5,070 34,406 96 236 0.5 0.9 110 215 277 1,999 159 1,040 57 52

GZP

SVR

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

12 10 12 2 2 2 8 12 12 152 218 200 633 1,194 1,000 4.2 5.5 5.0 88 114 112 2 2 2 21 19 20 2 2 11 7 11 9 100 100 93 24 18 93 88 112 110 100 98 98 54 95 103 1 1 2 11 7 19 61 83 92 54 93 101 100 98 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

TGL

RAJ

SHT

KLN

DHK

Annex 2: Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction (UPPR) Status as of December 2009 TNG

CTG

TABLE 2. Consolidated information of LPUPAP & UPPR up to December 2009 (LPUPAP+UPPR) No. of CDCs 1,262 123 45 239 9 134 48 No. of Households '000 396 31 12 62 1 49 11 Total Population '000 1,735 144 51 290 4 206 43 HH/CDC 314 249 266 257 98 368 236 POP/CDC 1,375 1,168 1,130 1,215 473 1,536 886 POP/HH 4.4 4.7 4.2 4.7 4.8 4.2 3.8 PGs 12,521 1,184 605 2,300 45 1,886 501 PG Members (HH) '000 236 23 12 45 1 37 10 HH/PG 19 19 20 20 15 20 21 PG Population '000 1,088 107 50 223 3 176 38 PG/CDC 10 10 13 10 5 14 10 % of HH in PGs 60 75 99 73 77 75 91 % of POP in PGs 63 75 99 77 77 85 89 Female PGs 12,106 1,103 604 2,216 45 1,868 501 % Female PGs 97 93 100 96 100 99 100 SCGs 9,830 870 241 1,505 1,371 312 SCG Members (HH) '000 158 13 1 22 25 4 HH/SCG 16 15 4 14 18 12 % of PG with SCGs 79 73 40 65 73 62 Female SCGs 9,549 857 241 1,445 1,367 312 % Female SCGs 97 99 100 96 100 100 Total Amount (Tk) '000 154,718 12,496 0 20,204 30,392 641 Savings Per Mem 978 939 0 932 1,238 177 Total Amount (Tk) '000 325,382 21,706 32,649 115,847 0 Credit Per Mem 2,056 1,630 1,506 4,718 Credit/Savings 2.1 1.7 1.6 3.8 No. of Contracts 2,306 231 8 269 281 17 Contract/CDC 1.8 1.9 0.2 1.1 2.1 0.4 Total Value (Tk) '000 971,094 89,013 7 121,327 133,383 12,418 Value/Contract '000 421 385 1 451 475 730 Value/HH 2,451 2,909 1 1,972 2,705 1,095 Value/POP 560 620 0 418 648 292 Latrines 53,672 4,848 90 6,175 14,854 188 Tubewells 6,175 314 632 1,845 14 HH/Latrine 7 6 133 10 3 60 HH/Tubewell 64 97 97 27 810 Footpath (meter) '000 322 18 3 38 0 47 2 Drain (meter) '000 101 7 2 17 0 7 0 Drain Slab/cover 1,601 Water Reservoir 98 61 0 0 0 0 0 Bathroom 516 3 0 7 0 0 0 Street Light Post 1,570 38 Tubewell platforms 514 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Contracts 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 Market Shade 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. of Contracts 1,754 163 16 118 118 36 Contract/CDC 1.4 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.8 Total Value (Tk) '000 285,445 26,017 3 19,989 23,410 2,565 Value/Contract '000 163 160 0 169 198 71 Value/HH '000 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 Value/POP 165 181 0 69 114 60 Total Apprentice 16,369 1,501 1,475 1,796 98 Female Apprentice 7,689 746 767 668 64 % Female Apprent 47 50 52 37 65

CDC, HH & Population

Savings-Credit

Primary Groups

Groups

Crd. Sav.

SIF Information

SEF Information

42 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 SRG

KST

GPG

35 36 81 22 11 13 34 11 47 56 152 52 303 370 423 500 1,351 1,569 1,875 2,364 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.7 59 245 297 922 239 1 4 5 14 4 17 18 16 19 21 22 85 19 7 8 11 11 40 41 42 41 45 39 56 36 59 222 257 895 207 100 91 87 97 87 245 274 921 206 4 4 14 3 17 16 16 16 100 92 100 86 222 252 894 177 91 92 97 86 5,286 6,664 17,243 4,447 1,258 1,482 1,202 1,354 8,630 9,308 26,714 11,416 2,055 2,070 1,862 3,476 1.6 1.4 1.5 2.6 128 177 232 100 3.7 4.9 2.9 4.5 43,982 67,879 98,408 41,655 344 383 424 417 4,149 5,094 2,871 3,789 930 1,202 648 801 1,937 3,083 7,067 1,785 108 383 465 5 4 5 6 123 90 24 0 21 26 21 21 0 2 15 4 1 100 1,273 209 0 36 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 8 4 0 42 42 56 15 0 0 2 0 6 0 20 0 0 0 55 147 98 45 1.6 4.1 1.2 2.0 10,125 15,245 7,852 8,853 184 104 80 197 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.8 214 270 52 170 579 858 678 525 224 347 271 228 39 40 40 43

NOG 11 2 9

HBG

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 43

Total

CTG

KLN

DHK

45 125 18 125 12 32 51 150 266 256 1,130 1,202 4.2 4.7 605 1,113 12 20 20 18 50 102 13 9 99 63 99 68 604 1,117 100 100 241 770 0.9 11.3 4 15 40 69 241 772 100 100 0 8,595 0 759 0 14,517 1,282 1.7 8 100 0.2 0.8 7 31,818 1 318 1 995 0 212 90 769 0 20 133 42 1,599 3 16 1.7 10.4 0 0 16 59 0.4 0.5 3 10,796 0 183 0 338 0 72 0 576 0 397 69 -

0 0

0 0.0 0

0 0 0 0

1 4 98 473 4.8 45 1 15 3 5 77 77 45 100

SHT -

RNP

MMS

TNG

RAJ 52 48 20 40 29 17 16 30 18 11 8 13 79 43 31 59 346 236 392 331 1,517 886 1,545 1,486 4.4 3.8 3.9 4.5 1,024 501 205 341 22 10 4 7 21 21 20 19 108 38 15 28 20 10 10 9 120 91 52 50 136 89 48 48 1,023 501 204 341 100 100 100 100 618 312 205 341 12.2 3.6 3.7 6.6 20 12 18 19 60 62 100 100 628 312 198 341 102 100 97 100 12,019 641 3,518 1,315 984 177 952 198 59,877 0 9,473 0 4,900 2,564 5.0 2.7 101 17 83 14 1.9 0.4 4.2 0.4 45,700 12,418 49,707 9 452 730 599 1 2,540 1,095 6,347 1 579 292 1,609 0 8,428 188 1,114 54 1,152 14 567 13 2 60 7 245 16 810 14 1,018 8 2 5 5 0.4 0.0 1.3 1.8 0 0 0 0 40 64 36 177 65 1.2 0.8 8.9 1.6 11,720 2,565 54,723 5,998 183 71 309 92 651 226 6,987 453 149 60 1,771 101 744 98 1081 387 352 64 355 247 47 65 33 64

CML

JSR

NRG

BRL 62 24 29 30 27 24 24 24 16 14 7 6 75 59 32 27 260 602 257 208 1,206 2,438 1,099 897 4.6 4.1 4.3 4.3 558 196 301 250 10 4 6 5 18 19 19 18 39 15 25 18 9 8 10 8 61 25 78 74 52 25 77 66 556 193 299 248 100 98 99 99 560 133 190 249 10.0 2.5 3.2 4.5 18 19 17 18 100 68 63 100 559 131 190 248 100 98 100 100 6,035 4,769 711 989 604 1,921 219 221 14,147 10,026 48 989 1,417 4,038 15 221 2.3 2.1 0.1 1.0 130 71 24 24 2.1 3.0 0.8 0.8 59,333 30,643 8,800 10,736 456 432 367 447 3,685 2,121 1,182 1,720 794 524 276 399 1,662 469 440 379 253 47 12 99 10 31 17 16 64 307 620 63 11 13 0 0 2.2 4.4 0.0 0.2 0 0 0 0 16 32 120 133 40 65 1.9 5.5 1.4 2.2 28,401 18,158 3,350 4,011 237 137 84 62 1,764 1,257 450 643 380 310 105 149 1196 1213 203 244 647 566 107 152 54 47 53 62

BGR

CNP

DNP 32 15 16 27 16 9 4 9 46 19 49 288 250 559 1,442 1,250 3,071 5.0 5.0 5.5 347 159 192 6 3 4 17 19 21 46 15 20 11 11 12 64 82 45 100 82 41 347 159 192 100 100 100 301 98 192 5.3 1.8 4.2 18 18 22 87 62 100 301 98 192 100 100 100 1,184 73 5,848 223 42 1,407 0 73 13,735 42 3,304 1.0 2.3 17 66 0.5 4.1 8,575 0 45,079 504 683 929 5,041 186 918 476 0 645 22 0 90 19 14 419 99 0 0 25 0.0 0.0 14.8 0 0 0 51 203 250 53 115 1.7 7.2 5,070 0 26,992 96 235 549 0 3,018 110 549 277 0 1369 159 0 751 57 55

GZP

SVR

0 0

0 0.0 0

0 0

0 0.0 0

0 0

0 0.0 0

0 0

10 12 9 2 2 2 8 12 12 152 218 200 633 1,194 1,000 4.2 5.5 5.0 88 114 112 2 2 2 21 19 20 2 2 11 7 11 9 100 100 93 24 18 93 88 112 110 100 98 98 54 95 103 0.6 0.7 2.0 11 7 19 61 83 92 54 93 101 100 98 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TGL

Annex 2: Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction (UPPR) Status as of December 2009

TABLE 3. Information of UPPR up to December 2009 No. of CDCs up to Dec 09 672 53 WBA Dec 09 466 53 No. of Households '000 203 18 Total Population '000 901 79 HH/CDC 302 333 POP/CDC 1,341 1,486 POP/HH 4.4 4.5 PGs 7,066 557 PG Members (HH) '000 135 11 HH/PG 19 20 PG Population ('000) 604 47 PG/CDC 11 11 % of HH in PGs 67 62 % of POP in PGs 67 60 Female PGs 7,028 553 % Female PGs 99 99 SCGs 5,219 456 SCG Members (HH) '000 86.1 7.4 HH/SCG 16 16 % of PG with SCGs 74 82 Female SCGs 5,213 457 % Female SCGs 100 100 Total Amount (Tk) '000 56,765 4,340 Savings Per Mem 659 590 Total Amount (Tk) '000 144,068 10,486 Credit Per Mem 1,673 1,426 Credit/Savings 2.5 2.4 No. of Contracts 968 100 Contract/CDC 1.4 1.9 Total Value (Tk) '000 421,476 38,148 Value/Contract '000 435 381 Value/HH 2,074 2,163 Value/POP 468 484 Latrines 17,653 1,456 Tubewells 2,451 51 HH/Latrine 12 12 HH/Tubewell 83 346 Footpath (m) '000 139 8 Drain (m) '000 49.0 3.4 Drain Slab/cover 0 0 Water_Reserviour 62 50 Bath_Room 67 Street Light Post 203 Tubewell platforms 327 No. of Contracts 1,222 100 Contract/CDC 1.8 1.9 Total Value (Tk) '000 214,156 18,775 Value/Contract '000 175 188 Value/HH 1,054 1,064 Value/POP 238 238 Total Apprentice 9,147 864 Female Apprentice 4,795 526 % Female Apprent 52 61

CDC, HH & Population

Savings-Credit

Primary Groups

Groups

Crd. Sav.

SIF Information

SEF Information

NOG -

0 0

0 0.0 0

0 0

59 100

59 1

2 9

SRG

KST

GPG 14 3 10 14 3 10 3 2 9 15 4 33 241 770 864 1,042 1,281 3,314 4.3 1.7 3.8 100 68 130 2 1 2 17 18 14 7 3 9 7 23 13 50 54 21 51 77 27 98 62 117 98 91 90 100 60 129 1.6 1.2 2.7 16 19 21 100 88 99 98 59 128 98 98 99 1,351 1,337 3,840 820 1,145 1,429 1,232 3,490 5,471 748 2,990 2,035 0.9 2.6 1.4 36 60 82 2.6 20.0 8.2 18,693 26,490 22,731 519 441 277 5,532 11,467 2,631 1,281 6,893 686 354 679 155 0 6 9 10 3 56 385 960 10 12 10 0.5 6.9 1.1 0 0 0 11 1 5 30 79 51 2.1 26.3 5.1 6,738 8,507 3,827 225 108 75 1,994 3,683 443 462 2,214 115 230 223 289 91 136 127 40 61 44

12 0.2

1 0

1 7

153 118 77

4,521 238

295 96 5 15 11 0.0 0 19

12,591 360

200 1,110 503 2,793 2.5 35

1,200 12

HBG

Annex 3: Proposed Project Logframe GOAL

Indicator

Urban poverty in Bangladesh reduced

G1: Incidence of poverty in urban areas.

PURPOSE

Indicator

Livelihoods and living conditions of 3 million poor and extremely poor people, especially women and children, living in urban areas, sustainably improved. OUTPUT 1

G2: Improved performance in reaching MDG goal 7 target 11 P1: #/% of poor households whose poverty levels are reduced. P2: #/% poor people (adults and children) eating on average 1, 2, and 3 meals per day. P3: #/% poor & extremely poor households with sustainable access to an improved water source P4: #/% of poor and extremely poor households with access to government safety nets and social assistance P5: #/% of poor men/women who report improved participation in decision-making at household, community and town level Indicator 1.1 #/% of households organized into primary groups.

Urban poor communities* mobilized to form representative and inclusive subgroups and prepare community action plans

1.2 # of Community Action Plans (CAPs) prepared and approved by community and endorsed by the Project Town Board (PTB) 1.3 # of poor non-slum/homeless people identified/mapped and supported 1.4 #/% of people satisfied with CDCs/PGs performance 1.5 # towns with Community Development Funds for physical/social development

OUTPUT 2

Poor urban communities* have healthy and secure living environments

Indicator 2.1 #/% households with access to basic infrastructure and effective services (water, sanitation, drainage/flood avoidance) 2.2 #/% of households who report their security of tenure has improved 2.3 #/% of households trained in key hygiene and nutrition behaviors 2.4 % of SIF budget delivered

OUTPUT 3

Indicator 3.1 #/% of people who are trained or supported by programme (skills development training; small enterprise block grant; other)

Urban poor and extremely poor people acquire the resources, knowledge and skills to increase their incomes and assets

3.2 #/% of people trained/supported by programme [who have regular employment 6-months after training/support] 3.3 #/% of poor children attending primary and secondary school 3.4 #/% of households reporting a decline in social problems (e.g. domestic violence, drug abuse, dowry, early marriage) 3.5 % of SEF budget delivered

OUTPUT 4

Indicator 4.1 # of effective partnerships established at town and national level

Partnerships and city/urban development models/ strategies developed to influence pro-poor local and national level policies and practices

4.2 # of instances where TLCC is influenced to adopt pro-poor policies at the town level 4.3 # of partnerships that result in increase access of poor and extremely poor households to non-programme services (health/ health red card for extreme poor, education, social protection etc) 4.4 # towns with economic development and poverty reduction plans prepared with all stakeholder participation

44 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Annex 4: Analysis of LPUPAP statistics This note reviews the summary statistics for the LPUPAP which covered 11 cities/towns in Bangladesh from 2000 to 2007. Some 600 community development committees (CDCs) were created under the LPUPAP. Khulna had the highest number of CDCs (125), while only 21 were constituted in Gopalganj. The total population covered under the LPUPAP was 888,185 with the maximum number of people (140,159) being covered in Khulna, while only 32,362 people were covered by the Programme in GPG. Not surprisingly, the largest number of households was covered in the town of Khulna, while the least number of households covered was in GPG. The total number of households that benefited from the LPUPAP was about 205,000. LPUPAP had a high number of households that comprised each CDC. While the project targeted just 200 households per CDC, the actual average for the 11 towns was much higher at 334. There were substantial variations across towns, with 584 households per CDC in the town of Bogra and just 248 in Chittagong. The average number of people per CDC was 1,447 and this too, was higher than the desired level of 1000. Bogra with 2,257 people per CDC was much above the average for the 11 towns, while the minimum number of people per CDC (1,106) was in the town of Barisal. The population per household (4.33) was on average below the assumed level of 5. In fact, this was found to be the case for all the towns, with Chittagong having the highest number of people (4.94) per household and Mymensingh recording the least (3.98). One of the first steps in community organizing is the clustering of households into primary groups (PGs). The total number of PGs formed under the LPUPAP was 5,490 and ranged from a high of 1,187 in Khulna to a low of 140 in Narayanganj. The PGs covered about 103,00 households. The maximum number of households (24,782) to be grouped into PGs was in Khulna, while the minimum (2,552) was in Gopalganj. The Programme has been successful in ensuring that the average number of households per PG (19) did not exceed the recommended rate of 20. A number of towns have 18 households per PG, while Khulna had the maximum number of households (21) per PG. The number of PGs per CDC varies between 11 in several towns and 5 in Narayanganj, with an average of 9 for the entire sample. The LPUPAP has been unable include a large percentage of households in PGs. On average, just 50 percent of all households have been organized into PGs. In Narayanganj, just 25 percent of households have been covered. The Programme has had the best coverage in Khulna, as it has been able to organize 79 percent of the households into PGs. This underscores the need to improve coverage of the Programme and provide incentives for households to participate in the PGs. Another question that this raises is concerning the kind of households that have been left out. Have the relatively richer households declined to join the PGs? Another shortcoming of the LPUPAP is perhaps its failure to induce men to join PGs. An overwhelming 93 percent of the PGs are female. This percentage varies across towns with almost all (97 percent) PGs being female in Sirajganj and 85 percent in Narayanganj and Kustia. It may be that a community cannot be developed successfully if men are not part of the development process. Men may be joining PGs because the community organisers visit households during the day, when most men are not at home. During the duration of the LPUPAP, a total of 4,637 savings and credit groups (SCGs) were formed. The maximum number of SCGs (792) was in Sirajganj despite not having the maximum number of PGs, while the minimum number (141) was in Narayanganj which also had the least number of PGs. Overall, 72,677 households joined SCGs.. Overall 84 percent of the PGs had SCGs. All PGs in Gopalganj, Narayanganj and Bogra had SCGs. By contrast, only 62 percent of the PGs created SCGs in Khulna. As in the case of PGs, SCGs too, are overwhelmingly female, with the average for all towns at 94 percent. Across towns female SCGs vary from 85 percent in Hobiganj to 98 percent in Rajshahi. Taka 98.3 million has been saved by the participants, while much more (Taka 178.2 million) has been extended in credit. The credit to savings ratio is therefore 1.8. The average savings and credit per member for all the towns was Taka 1,352 and Taka 2,452 respectively. The highest savings was in the town of Bogra at Taka 1,783 per member. However, the highest credit per member (Taka 4,538) was in Rajshahi. Narayanganj had the lowest savings per member of Taka 1,095

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 45

and Taka 664 was the lowest credit per member in Mymensingh. Some 1321 contracts have been awarded under the Settlement Improvement Fund (SIF). The highest number (180) of contracts was awarded in Rajshahi and just 54 in Narayanganj. On average, 2 contracts were awarded to each CDC. The maximum number of contracts per CDC (4) was to be found in Kustia and Gopalganj, while just 1 contract per CDC was awarded in Khulna. The average total value of contracts was Taka 564.8 million. Across the various towns, contracts worth almost Taka 90 million were awarded to Khulna, while contracts valued at Taka 15 million were awarded to Narayanganj. This translated into Taka 2,754 for the average household, with Taka 3,572 per household in Gopalganj being the highest value and Taka 1,324 in Narayanganj being the lowest. This however, is much below the project sanctioned ceiling of US$ 100 (Taka 6,800) per household. When disaggregated further, the average received per person was only Taka 636. In Narayanganj the average individual received just Taka 319. By contrast, the average benefit per person in Barisal was much higher at Taka 824. These contracts have been used to build latrines and tubewells. A total of 35,972 latrines and 3,723 tubewells were constructed. While the LPUPAP had a target of 3 households to a latrine, in practice it delivered latrines at the rate of one for about 5.7 households. This ratio is much higher in Narayanganj, with almost 19 households to a latrine and much lower in Sirajganj with 3.86 households per latrine. It is unclear to what extent the communities had latrines that had been built by others. Moreover, the LPUAP targeted one tubewell for 20 households but delivered tubewells at the rate of 55 households per tubewell. In Narayanganj this rate is 308 households per tubewell and in Hobiganj it is 25.9 households per tubewell. Contracts have also been awarded under the Socio-Economic Fund (SEF). In total, 538 contracts with a total value of Taka 71.4 million were awarded. An average of 1 contract/CDC was given. The average value of the contract was Taka 132,798. The average value/contract in Sirajganj was much lower than this average at Taka 85,631. The average contract in Bogra far exceeded this average and was valued at Taka 239,173. The benefits accruing to the average household were Taka 348. Taka 581 was the highest average benefit per household in Narayanganj, while Taka 154 was the lowest average benefit in Sirajganj. This translated into a very modest benefit of Taka 80 per person. The highest award per person was Taka 140 in Narayanganj and the lowest award of Taka 34 was in SR Sirajganj. Some 7219 apprenticeships were granted under the SEF. Rajshahi received 1052 apprenticeships â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the highest amongst the 11 towns, while the lowest number of apprenticeships (349) was awarded in Gopalganj. It is interesting to note that apprenticeships were mostly awarded to men â&#x20AC;&#x201C; on average 60 percent of the recipients were men. This figure is even higher in Hobiganj, where only 30 percent of the apprenticeships went to women. In Narayanganj, female apprenticeships comprised 51 percent of the total.

46 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Annex 5: Homeless Person Mapping The HPM method and outputs The purpose of mapping homeless people is to focus Programme resources on towns and areas where they are most prevalent and on specific groups of homeless such as girls and disabled people. Key features of the HPM method are: engagement of a wide range of stakeholders in all steps of the survey; validation of the results through a process of surveying at two times of the day and at different periods of the month; and stakeholder ownership and publicity of the results. The HPM method has the following and steps: • train, by UPPRs HQ staff, the UPPR project town team in the method; • hold a town-level stakeholders workshop, chaired by the Mayor, to explain the survey’s purpose and method and to seek their collaboration in conducting the survey; • hold ward-level stakeholders meetings to help in identify specific locations of the homeless poor and other key informants and to participate in the data collection process; • divide each ward into 3 to 5 blocks demarcated by the local physical features or other important landmarks; • conduct the survey, with a team of two persons for each block, at each location at night and early morning by counting the number of homeless people present; the double-counting method ensures that the people have slept at these locations overnight; • tabulate, by the town team, the data for each ward, share the results with ward stakeholders, and get the document signed by the ward councilors; • tabulate and map the date for the whole town and input into the GIS; • share the results with the town-level stakeholders, get the Mayor to sign the document, and get the media publicize the results; • conduct the survey at random locations 10 to 15 days after the first survey to validate the results. Key Survey Findings Who are the homeless? The survey – completed in twenty urban centers including 3 cities and 17 towns with a total population of 5.6 million – found almost 22,000 people at over 2,500 locations. Among the total homeless population, 83 percent were adults, 12.5 percent children, 4.5 percent disabled. About one-quarter of the homeless were female. The homeless/town population ratio was highest in the expanding towns near Dhaka, such as Gazipur (1.3%) and Tongi (0.6%) and lowest in Comilla (0.1%) and Khulna (0.18%). Interestingly, smaller secondary towns such as Gopalganj and Tongi have a much higher homeless/town ratio, 0.8 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively, than do the divisional cities such as Khulna (0.1 %) and Barisal (0.2 %). On average, 22 percent of the adult homeless were female. But the percentage rose to 50 percent in Khulna and Dinajpur and shrunk to less than 10 percent in the growing towns near Dhaka such as Gazipur, Savar, and Tangail. Similarly, on average, while 12.5 percent of the homeless were children, this percentage rose to 29 percent in Gopalganj, 23 percent in Rangpur, and about 20 percent in Dinajpur and Barisal. Below-average percentages of homeless children were found in Savar, Tangail, and Chapai Nawabganj. There are more females among children than adults; about a third of homeless children are girls, although in several cities – Kustia, Hobiganj, Gazipur, Rajashahi, and Khulna – their percentage increases to between 52 and 39 percent. In Comilla and Rangpur, they account for only 2 and 8 percent of the homeless children. About 4.5 percent of the homeless are disabled. A higher percentage (40%) of the disabled are women than are adults and children. Almost 50 percent of the disabled homeless are in three cities: 282 in Khulna, 128 in Rajashahi and 70 in Barisal. Very few are visible in smaller towns. A few towns warrant particular attention. Rajshahi has the highest number of the homeless, a high homeless/town population ratio, and the highest share of homeless children and disabled. Gajipur, a small secondary town, has the highest homeless/town population ratio (1.3%), the lowest percentage of homeless women, and a high girl/boy ratio. Tongi has a very high homeless/town population ratio and a high girl/boy ratio (30%).

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 47

Where are the homeless found? The homeless are most frequently found at railway stations, bus stands, market areas and religious establishments. The homeless, especially in small towns, are found at scattered locations; 43 percent of the homeless population are found to be living at 75 percent of the locations having concentrations of less than 25 people. There are few locations that have higher concentrations of homeless; for example, three locations have more than 300 homeless people, five locations have more than 200, and thirty-four have more than 100 homeless people. Only 2 locations, which are railway stations, had more than 400 homeless people.

One of 20,000 homeless people in Dhaka

48 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Area

Total

Male

Female

Rajshahi

3,257

2,446

811

Tongi

2,083

1,705

378

Khulna

2,071

1,062

1,009

Mymensingh

2,020

1507

513

Gazipur

1,917

1738

179

Barisal

1,205

876

329

Rangpur

1,194

953

241

Jessore

1,088

903

185

Gopalgonj

1,050

814

236

Sirajgonj

906

656

250

Bogra

729

588

141

Kustia

723

551

172

Narayangonj

648

472

176

Dinajpur

626

337

289

Tangail

520

459

Hobigonj

372

245

127

Comilla

367

265

102

Savar

367

318

Noagaon

346

278

Chapai

317

265

Annex 6: Settlement and Land Mapping Method A poverty impact assessment of LPUPAP had found that it had ‘restricted its activities to pockets of well-defined slum poor’. Another evaluation pointed out that ‘the selection of communities favoured the ‘easier’ settlements; whereas the new, contested or environmentally marginal settlements are more likely to be the homes of poorer populations. To meet the concerns of these evaluations, the Project developed the Settlements and Land Mapping method, or SLM. SLM identifies and maps (i) all low income slums and squatter settlements and (ii) available vacant lands potentially suitable for settlement, particularly relocation of evicted populations, and for other pro-poor uses such as markets and urban food production. The participator method engages trained community leaders and the local government organizations to undertake most of the work. SLM method and outputs The settlement assessment covers sixteen indicators: land ownership; type of occupancy; nature of housing units; functioning water supply; availability of hygienic sanitation; drainage; types of access roads; electricity for private use; municipal solid waste collection service; enrollment of eligible children in schools; employment access to civic facilities; household income; coverage by community savings & credit activities; risk and vulnerability and the extent of social problems. Each indicator is scored by key informants, including those from the settlement being assessed. The informants select the most appropriate of four options provided in the assessment sheet. The scores are then totaled to derive the total score for each settlement. Settlements that are most vulnerable are considered by UPPR as having the highest priority and the first to be included in the Programme. The outputs of the SLM in each town include: a GIS map of the town showing numbered settlements and numbered vacant land parcels; a database of settlements and vacant land with attributes that can be mapped through the GIS; and town level stakeholders with survey skills and improved knowledge of the settlement and vacant land situation in their wards and towns. The SLM is also one of the components of the baseline design. At the middle and end of the Programme period, the survey will be repeated to and compared with the baseline to determine any change in the number, size, and attributes of settlements and in the use of the vacant lands. The Project is planning complete SLM in all remaining towns. For this it has developed a manual for the training of trainers on SLM; recruited and trained three Urban Planning Experts, and is outsourcing the work to a local organisation with similar experience in Bangladesh. It is also accessing satellite imagery of towns to improve the efficiency of the mapping process and the accuracy of the maps. In addition, it plans to overlap the disaster risk assessment maps from the CDMP project. Survey and Land Mapping Results The results in method has been tested in Gopalganj and then refined in Tongi. Key features of these results are the following: • the number of settlements are higher than anticipated; 225 and 712 settlements were found in Gopalganj and Tongi respectively; • the settlements were distributed to almost all wards in the towns; • the settlement sizes varied significantly, from a very few households to almost 2500 (in Tongi), as did their vulnerability index; • the populations in these settlements was, in Gopalganj, about 15,000 less and in Tongi about 105,000 more than the target populations in the original Programme Document. Implications of results on Project These results have important implications on other Project activities as follows: The larger number of settlements spread throughout the town will increase the logistical costs of serving them; the town teams will need to develop an improved field implementation strategy; The wide variance of geographically separate settlements by size and poverty status increases the challenges to appropriate CDC formation; the town teams will need to treat each smaller settlement as a CDC, again increasing the logistical

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 49

costs, and develop an improved and streamlined engagement strategy. For settlements of a size greater than 300 households, more efforts are required to split them into two or more CDCs. The increased slum population above that which has been targeted will required more resources if absorbed into the Project. While some of this increase may be offset by under-target slum populations, it is less likely, given that the targets were based on 2000 census, that this will be the case. The Project will need to review its targeting strategy. Options may include the following: absorb the additional population but reduce the level of Project support; cover only the most vulnerable of the targeted population; or consider reducing the number of towns in the Project.

50 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Annex 7: Savings and credit groups Community-based savings and credit programmes form the basis of the community empowerment process. The primary savings groups form the "building blocks" for the Community Development Committee. The cumulative total savings in all communities exceeds US$1.8 million. The savings and credit operations are managed entirely by the CDCs and they do not have any additional project funds. The communities see the savings and credit programme as an important part of their empowerment process. They are now reluctant to take loans from non-community managed sources as they lose interest and â&#x20AC;&#x153;management chargesâ&#x20AC;? and prefer to have funds which are entirely in their control. These community-led and managed initiatives are providing direct support for income generation activities as well as proving loans for emergency and consumption purposes, reducing the necessity to use money lenders. Once primary groups are formed, the project staff helps them start savings and credit sub-groups (SCG). The purpose of SCGs is to build primary group solidarity and trust, promote a savings habits in the member, build financial management skills, and provide access to credit at a rate less than that of the micro-finance institutions. Unlike some other programmes, the SCG manages its own savings and loan account. Under LPUPAP rules, the SCGs needed to be operational before the CDC could receive community-contracts. This rule is under review given that SCGs have excluded extreme poor and that the link between SCG performance and the capacity to manage contracts is weak. The Programme provides book-keeping training and savings and credit books. No Programme funds are invested in SCGs. Under LPUPAP there were 4,637 SCGs formed with 72,677 members in ?? CDCs. About 16 percent of the PGs had not formed SCGs and 30 percent of the PG members were not in SCGs. The total savings had reached BDT over 98 million (~ US?? million) At the end of 2008 there were 5,626 Savings Groups and the savings had reached BDT 127,067,677 (~US$1.85 million). In December 2008 the monthly savings was BDT 2,130,326. At the end of 2009 there were 6,259 SCGs with 103,599 members in 748 CDCs in 11 towns. As of June 2009, total savings had increased to over BDT 143 million, about US$ 2 million. The cumulative value credit disbursed was BDT 178 million (about US$ 2.5 million). Status Savings and Credit Groups Description

Total

No. of towns

No. of CDCs

748

No. of SCGs

6,259

No. of SCG Members

103,599

Savings amount

BDT 143,226,311

Value loans disbursed

BDT 178,198,000

Value of savings to be collected in June

BDT 4,143,960

Value of savings collected in June

BDT 2,609,963

To be compared to actual savings collection

BDT 1,513,997

Value of credit repayments due in June

BDT 8,909,742

Value of credit repayments collected in June

BDT 5,391,193

Value of credit arrears in June

BDT 3,518,549

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 51

Nevertheless, despite this achievement, the above information indicated some deficiencies in the SCG operation. Yet there was a lack of vital data to properly analyze the SCG performance. Therefore the Project Financial Advisor designed a rapid assessment tool to generate and analyze the data on performance of CDCs institutional, credit and savings. Rapid Analysis of SCG performance Institutional performance 75% CDCs ( 404 out of 537 CDCs) have credit arrears 80% CDCs (428 out of 537 CDCs) have inactive savings accounts Savings performance 29% of account are inactive Credit performance BDT 234 million disbursed for 41,860 loans has an outstanding balance of BDT. 80 million in 18,674 loans On average, 72% of loans performing, this performance varies by town On average, 28% loans are in arrears 51% of arrears loans are overdue for more than 365 days Overall portfolio at risk is 22%

The above findings supported the view that the SCG operations were in a critical condition, and that this needed to be addressed promptly. Therefore, following actions were planned and initiated to address current issues, but also to ensure development of a sustainable financial service mechanism at community level: • execute an external review of SCGs in CDCs (in process in Sirajganj); • undertake action planning to address the issue by involving project staff, CDC officials, and project town board (technical guidelines have been provided, 5 towns have completed their plans and are in the process of implementing); • undertake an operational review of savings and credit operations of all CDCs to cover policy, procedures, system, products, and governance & management; • provide capacity building to CDC officials in governance, portfolio management/monitoring, accounting, delinquency management, and financial product development; • establish a portfolio management system for the performance of SCG portfolio and a portfolio monitoring system to encourage proper fund utilization, accountability and to minimize delinquency; • initiate monthly portfolio analysis to determine and guide on growth, portfolio quality, financial structure, efficiency, productivity, sustainability and profitability. • Introduce an internal control system to ensure adequate accountability and transparency in all respect of the portfolio; • provide an appropriate automated MIS at CDC cluster level to maintain accuracy of portfolio tracking. • facilitate for a regulatory framework for CDCs, converting them into a regulated financial entity.

52 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Annex 8: The community contracting process The communities access SIF funds through an established mechanism of applying for approval through the Project Implementation Committee (PIC) at the ward level the Project Coordination Committee (PCC) at the city or pourashava level. The maximum amount of each contract is the BDT equivalent of US$10,000. At project headquarters, a technical and financial appraisal is undertaken and authorisation obtained from UN-Habitat. The authorised funds are then transferred by UNDP to a dedicated bank account maintained by local government for the Settlement Improvement Fund. The local government disburses the fund to the communities in instalments against progress of works and approved expenditure. The PCCs and PICs are responsible for the proper and effective utilization of the community contract funds. This establishes direct partnerships between the local government and the community based organizations. The project and the local government provide technical support to the community organizations. The project has introduced a process of participatory monitoring with Clusters forming a monitoring committee with technical backup from the project. This is an important part of the peer learning processes. The community contract system has proved to be a transparent and cost effective way of undertaking physical improvement, with the communities procuring materials and hiring labour. Community management skills have been developed in physical implementation and the administration of the contract as well as financial management. Copies of the contract are available to the communities, local governments and project teams which ensure transparency. Since the community plans and prioritises the work and then carries it out under the contract, they feel as the “owner” of the facilities created. By supervising the construction process community members also know how to carry out maintenance. Experience shows that the quality of the work is of higher standard than the work of commercial contractors, since communities are undertaking the work for themselves and do not compromise on quality. In order to implement the Community Action Plans, the Project established a Settlement Improvement Fund to provide financial resources for implementation of community-based projects through contracts issued by the local government to Community or Cluster Development Committees (“community contracts”). Based on the priorities in the CAP, community-contracts have been the sole means by which communities have improved their living environments. Prepared in accordance with Programme guidelines, and under the guidance of the PTT and local government, contract proposals include facility designs, cost estimates, and a location map. Standard designs templates are used for most common facilities, although variations are permitted suit particular sites or the needs of communities. Cost estimates are based on LGED’s local rate schedule. All contract proposals must be approved by the CDC, vetted by the ward-level PIC, approved by the PTB chaired by the mayor, and approved by the PMT. Once approved, the PMT requests UN-Habitat to authorise expenditure; UNHABITAT in turn request UNDP to transfer the funds for each contract to a dedicated account in the local government. Funds are then transferred as advance instalments to an account held by the CDC, which has to produce accounts and show progress of works in order to obtain each instalment. The CDC procures materials, hires labour and supervises the construction works, with PTT support. The four CDC office bearers are paid management fee of 5 percent to cover their expenses for managing the contract While the community does not make any financial or in-kind contribution to the physical improvements, they are required to contribute 10 percent of the latrines and tube well costs into the community-managed O&M. The Project has set various rules that govern community contracts. Among the most important are: a contract value ceiling of US$ 10,000; a per-household ceiling of BDT 6,500 for total investment; a ratio of not less than threehouseholds or 15 persons, per shared-latrine; a ratio of 5-10 households per tubewell and 40 households per deep tube well; and a requirement for prior contract completion before new contracts can be approved. Nevertheless, there are provisions to relax these rules when justified, for example, for difficult site conditions. In 2009, the Project revised a few of these rules. Recognising the impact of inflation, the greater demand from larger CDCs, the transaction costs and the inherent delays of the approval process, it raised the contract value ceiling to US$ 15,000 and eliminated the requirement for prior-contract completion.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 53

Annex 9: Well Being Analysis Identifying the Poor and Extreme Poor in Slums: Key Findings of Well Being Analysis UPPRP initiated a participatory well being analysis to identify extreme poor, moderate poor and non-poor in targeted slums in order to fill in the information gap as well as to enable the slum community in collecting their own information for designing and monitoring local development initiatives. The Project has, so far, facilitated 127 CDCs in 16 prorgam towns[14] to identify and classify 107,134 households (HHs) into above three categories as well as to note their other vulnerabilities such as women headed households, dalit, tribal and HHs with disable member. The survey identified 24 percent extreme poor, 50 percent moderate poor and 26 percent non â&#x20AC;&#x201C; poor; while the Rangpur (36%) and Kustia (34 %) noted maximum percentages of extreme poor HHs, Narayanganj (8%) registered minimum percentage of them. Percentages of moderate poor HHs also vary considerably across the surveyed towns- highest percentages are found in Comilla (79%), Dinajpur (74%) and Dhaka (70%) and the lowest in Kustia (27%). Out of the total surveyed HHs, 7.8 percent (8,372) are female headed HHs, 2.5 percent (2,548) HHs with disable members, 1.5 percent (1,597) Dalit and 1.3 percent (1,348) tribal HHs. Multiple vulnerabilities of these HHs can be gauged form the facts that among 8,372 female headed HHs - almost 54 percent (4,469) are extreme poor and 38 percent (3,183) are poor, while among 2.4 percent (2,548) HHs with disable family member - 46 percent (1,170) are extreme poor and 41 percent (1,054) are poor. Among the tribal and dalit HHs only 27 percent and 28 percent, respectively, are extreme poor; more than 55 percent of them are moderate poor, but they are socially marginalized. Percentages of extreme and moderate poor HHs also vary in different CDCs; whereas 53 percent of CDCs have more than 200 extreme poor HHs and 39 percent have between 100 to 200 HHs, only 3 percent CDCs have less than 50 extreme poor HHs. % of types of vulnerable groups among Slum dwellers in different categories Category

Overall %

% of EP

% of Poor

% of Non-Poor

7.8

53.4

Female headed HHs HHs with Disability

2.4

Tribal HHs

1.3

Dalit HHs

1.5

[14] Dhaka, Chittagong, Rajshahi, Khullna, Barishal, Kustia, Gopalgonj, Bogra, Shirajgonj, Mymensingh, Hobigonj, Narayangonj, Tangail, Rangpur, Jessore, Comilla and Dianjpur

54 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Annex 10: Agro-based Community Resource Survey Agro-based Community Resource Survey The Project identified agro-based community resources which can be used for food production by the urban poor. Community-based resources include private vacant land and ponds; government vacant land and ponds; empty fields of schools, mosques and other buildings; and empty land beside roads and canals. The survey was conducted by CDC leaders in, on average, 19 CDCs in each of 15 Towns. Private vacant land and ponds On average there is about one hectare of private land, disbursed in about 23 plots, with potential used for urban food production. About 42 percent of this is already used, 22 percent partially or occasionally used, and 37 percent unused. Out of total, about 87 percent may be used for vegetable and fish production if the private land owner could be motivated to allow the extreme poor to use it. Empty government land and ponds On average there is more than one-half acre of vacant land government land in about three plots in each CDC, on average. About 30 percent is fully, 20 percent partially, and 50 percent not used. Overall, there may be 78 percent used for vegetable and fish production. These resources are owned or controlled by various government departments. The Seaport Authority owns about 36 percent, Deputy Commissioner 15 percent, City Corporation 14 percent, Roads and Highways 6 percent, Railways 5 percent, Water Development Board and Power Development Board jointly 3 percent, and other departments 5 percent, with about 18 percent unidentified. This land may also be allocated to urban poor for food production activities. Empty fields of Schools, Mosques and Mandirs On average there are about 40 decimal of vacant land around schools, mosques and mandirs. About 17 percent is fully-, 9 percent partially-, and 74 percent not-used. Overall, there may be 61 percent used for vegetable and fish production. This land would be ideal for temporary lease, share cropping, or demonstration projects of high yielding varieties, with the messages passed to parents from students at the school. Roadside empty land On average, roadsides account for about 14 decimals of vacant land per CDC. About 9 percent of this is fully-, 19 percent partially-, and 72 percent not-used. Overall there may be 64 percent of this available for vegetable production. The towns own 32 percent, Railway Department 16 percent, Roads & Highway Department 3 percent, with 49 percent of land owners not identified, although it is most likely owned by the towns. Because the towns are a directly partner of UPPR, the town teams will negotiate with the mayors to use the land for urban food production. Empty land beside canals and drains On average, canals and drains account for 15 decimals per CDC. About 6 percent of this is fully-, 12 percent partially-, and 82 percent not-used. Overall 65 percent may be available for food production. Again, the empty land beside canals and drains are controlled by the town, making it potentially available for food production.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 55

Annex 11: The Female Face of Urban Poverty In 2007, LPUPAP had conducted a survey of almost 16,000 low-income families in the towns of Rajshahi and Narayanganj. Because this data had not been analysed, UPPR analysed the data, focusing on the issue of gender and poverty. Of the 15,779 households surveyed, 2,263 or 14.3 percent were headed by women. The survey results show that there are gross inequities along gender lines. There is a higher likelihood of a household being poor – as measured by various dimensions of poverty such as education, income, assets, house structure, number of cooked meals consumed per day and health indicators – if it is headed by a woman. The survey confirms global evidence that female household heads are far more likely to be widowed, abandoned/separated or divorced than their male counterparts. While 96 percent of male heads were married, just 54 percent of female heads were married and 1 percent of male heads were widowed in contrast to 31 percent of women heads. Families headed by women are smaller than those headed by men, with almost 50 percent having just 2 or 3 members in contrast to 30 percent for men. Moreover, single-member households are more frequently headed by women (7.5%) than by men (0.5%). Male heads are better educated than women heads, with more years of education. While more than half of the female heads of households had no schooling, just one third of men headed households had no schooling. Men (34%) and women (29%) most commonly work as day labourers. More men (24%) have a business or trade than do women (14%). Women (4%) are three times more likely to be unemployed or beg for a living than men (1.5%). And they are far more likely to be employed as domestic workers (21%) than are men (1%). Men are more likely to work as transport workers and mechanics than women. Most (90%) female heads of households are working. But they earn less than male-headed households, with 39 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of female- and male-headed households having monthly incomes of less than Tk 1000; 39 percent and 46 percent earning Tk 1000-2500; 30 percent and 15 percent earning Tk 2500-5000; and 5 percent and 11 percent with incomes in excess of Tk 5000. Male-headed households own more assets – such as televisions, mobile phones, refrigerators, radios, almirahs and furniture – than do female-headed. The same goes for productive assets like bicycles, driver’s licences, sewing machines, electricity connections, cultivable land, livestock and fishing nets. And more women-headed households (50%) live in flimsy and make-shift dwellings than do their male-headed counterparts (30%). While 46 percent of male headed households ate three meals in a day, only 34 percent of female-headed families did so. And more (41%) female-headed households had no, one or two meals per day against 25% of the male-headed households. Female headed households are in poorer health than male headed households, as they report a higher incidence of diarrhoea, chronic illness and/or disability, as well as substance abuse.

56 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 57

Town--->

13,005

27,361 5,752

46,118

Extreme Poor

Poor Not Poor

Total Not PG HH

54,092 27,614

107,134

Poor Not Poor

Total (PG + Not PG) HH

100

Total Not PG HH

100

Not Poor

Total PG HH

50 26

100

Extreme Poor

Poor Not Poor

Total (PG + Not PG) HH

Percent (%) of Total (PG + Not PG) HH

28 59

Extreme Poor Poor

Percent (%) of PG HH

20 44 36

Extreme Poor Poor Not Poor

Percent (%) of not PG HH

25,428

Extreme Poor

Total (PG + Not PG) HH

12,423 26,731 21,862 61,016

Total

Extreme Poor Poor Not Poor Total Not PG HH Number of PG HH

Number of not PG HH

100

63 15

100

25 66

100

16 57 28

8,193

5,144 1,243

1,806

5,480

3,610 494

1,376

430 1,534 749 2,713

CTG

100

70 8

100

23 69

100

9 80 11

3,591

2,500 281

810

3,441

2,380 264

797

13 120 17 150

DHK

100

45 28

100

49 34

100

26 46 28

25,425

11,480 7,084

6,861

1,214

407 216

591

6,270 11,073 6,868 24,211

KLN

100

54 22

100

26 54

100

22 53 26

5,273

2,827 1,140

1,306

3,724

2,013 743

968

338 814 397 1,549

RAJ

100

59 10

100

33 58

100

10 74 16

4,440

2,635 427

1,378

3,990

2,301 356

1,333

45 334 71 450

TNG

100

37 36

100

42 43

100

25 36 39

5,174

1,900 1,853

1,421

748

321 115

312

1,109 1,579 1,738 4,426

MMS

100

40 24

100

50 47

100

24 35 41

8,810

3,550 2,072

3,188

4,167

1,939 146

2,082

1,106 1,611 1,926 4,643

RNP

100

41 34

100

30 43

100

19 40 41

4,041

1,667 1,383

991

1,972

840 542

590

401 827 841 2,069

BRL

100

48 45

100

13 57

100

6 44 50

7,558

3,613 3,375

570

2,104

1,206 628

270

300 2,407 2,747 5,454

NRG

100

50 25

100

31 54

100

11 38 51

6,152

3,066 1,537

1,549

4,440

2,415 662

1,363

186 651 875 1,712

JSR

Annex 12: Well-Being Assessment Results by Town

100

79 5

100

19 79

100

11 80 9

6,254

4,967 302

985

3,512

2,777 65

670

315 2,190 237 2,742

CML

100

74 10

100

18 77

100

5 38 57

6,912

5,090 674

1,148

6,255

4,842 300

1,113

35 248 374 657

DNP

100

39 42

100

35 50

100

13 35 52

8,032

3,125 3,359

1,548

2,305

1,141 358

806

742 1,984 3,001 5,727

BGR

100

37 43

100

22 44

100

18 30 52

2,902

1,068 1,260

574

1,423

626 484

313

261 442 776 1,479

GPG

100

27 38

100

46 30

100

33 27 40

951

259 364

328

28 22

286 231 342 859

KST

Annex 13: Summary of Extreme Poor Strategy UPPR recognizes that different population groups of extreme poor often get excluded in poverty reduction programs unless they are targeted systematically and interventions are effectively designed and delivered. UPPR has therefore developed (i) a comprehensive methodology for targeting individual and households belonging to extreme poor category, and those living in most vulnerable settlements; and (ii) a set of strategic actions for strengthening extreme poor focus in its program implementation, town level institutional practices and national policies. Key strategies Based on documented best practices and extensive consultations with a range of stakeholders, including extreme urban poor, UPPR has formulated three tiered – micro (slum), meso (town) and macro (nation) levels - strategies for reducing extreme urban poverty. These are as follows: • Targeting, enabling and monitoring extreme poor’s access to UPPR services and benefits; • Making UPPR benefits sustainable by promoting institutional linkages and inclusive institutional practices; • Creating enabling policy environment for extreme urban poor through partnerships, networking and advocacy; Micro (Settlement) level strategies In order to target, enable and track the benefits to extreme poor, UPPR will adopt the following key strategic actions at that will cover slums and locations of homeless people: • Identify extreme poor – both economically active and dependant poor – of different vulnerable populations through (i) a community-driven participatory well being assessment, based on self-developed criteria, to distinguish extreme poor, moderate poor and non-poor in slum areas, (ii) community-led homeless people mapping to locate the homeless adult, children and physically challenged people in every project town and city; • Strengthen extreme poor focus, explicitly, in UPPR implementation processes / guidelines and project management systems – these processes and systems include (i) community mobilization, (ii) community organizations and community-based coordination committees by improving their representation and participation, (iii) community action planning through appropriate system of targeting the extreme poor, (iv) provisions and delivery mechanisms of SEF and SIF; and (iv) program budgeting, monitoring and knowledge management systems; • Pilot test, learn and up-scale initiatives towards community empowerment and services needed by the extreme and homeless poor throougn, for example, NGO-CDC partnerships; • Make CDCs and ward councilors accountable for program benefits to extreme poor through institutional capacity building; Meso (Town) level strategies In order to make the program benefits sustainable, UPPRP considers it important to undertake following strategic actions at town level• Develop linkages between CDCs and town level institutions and services that are relevant for varied needs of the extreme poor; • Develop institutional capacities and systems of the pourshavas or city corporations for addressing extreme poor needs; • Strengthen the extreme poor participation in TLCC, ward level Task Force (formed by the pourshavas) and other such committees Macro-level strategies In order to influence policies at the national-level, UPPR considers it important to undertake following strategic actions: • Develop partnerships with Urban Primary Health Care Program; WFP and GoB for Vulnerable Group Development; and Department of Education for extending girls’ stipend scheme in urban areas and social safety net programs; • Support and facilitate national-level policy initiatives for extreme poverty reduction in urban areas; • Implement initiatives to sensitize the policy makers and people. These may include, for example, media fellowships on extreme urban poverty, advocacy tool kits on EP for MPs, Mayors and councilors, and awards to town for successful initiatives to reduce extreme poverty.

58 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Annex 14: Data Reconciliation During the LPUPAP project (2000-2007), 583 Community Development Committees (CDC) were formed to establish an organizational basis of the beneficiaries to plan, manage, implement and monitoring the various components of the project activities. An additional 200 CDCs have been formed during the UPPR period starting 2008. At total of 2,110 community contracts have been funded through the CDCs in LPUPAP and UPPR for construction of basic services such as sanitation and water supply, improvements in access and environmental improvements such as drainage, solid waste management and cleaning of ponds. The total value of the contracts exceeded Taka 934 million. The funding was provided to the communities to support construction of 46,600 latrines; 5,200 tube wells; 287 km of footpath; 91 km of drain; 87 water reservoirs; and 77 community centers; and others. All CDCs have received at least one SIF contract and just over 55 percent of CDCs have received two or more community contracts. In addition, there are 6,300 savings and credit groups with a total savings of Taka 143 million and accumulative loan disbursement of Taka 280 million. Similarly, various Socio-Economic Fund (SEF) activities have been implemented in these CDCs in the form of education grants to children, start-up block grants for small enterprises, and apprenticeship training. One of the activities in the community action planning (CAP) process is to visualize the activities in the community by preparing a social map through a participatory process. CDCs are expected to update this social map, which identifies houses and community physical assets, every six months. In 2009, another layer of information was add by identifying, as part of the “well being analysis” (WBA), whether the households are extreme poor, poor or non-poor. This exercise was completed in all new CDCs (formed under UPPR), in preparation for the Houshold Baseline Survey, and will be completed in all the old CDCs (formed under LPUPAP) by April 2010. Similarly household survey is being conducted in the project area providing additional information about the situation in the project area. DATA RECONCILIATION The Programme has started a new process in each CDC to map and database of all community infrastructure assets delivered through SIF by the LPUPAP and UPPR and planned for under UPPR, as well as assets installed by others. The database will include asset attributes such as current condition and use. This exercise will also identify which infrastructure assets are still functioning or require repairs before the project phases out. The process will also interview the past and current beneficiaries of the SEF to determine whether they have received the grant and what is their current status; for example, whether the children are still in school or have moved on to higher studies, whether apprenticeship training has led to a job; whether and how enterprises are functioning. The purposes of this reconciliation process: • Cross-tabulating this data with the well-being analysis will show to what extent the Programme has been able to direct its benefit to the extreme poor and the poor in the communities and identify targeting gaps in services provided. • Comparing this data to the records in the Programme’s database will show to what extent the planned assets have been actually constructed. • Documenting the development status of the CDCs that are too be ppased-out will help them prepare a CAP for post-Programme period, including the need to establish linkages with other services and assistance providers. This exercise will involve the CDC members and community volunteers so that this becomes a feature of their community action planning process. For the UPPR project this exercise should assist in positively skewing the project activities in favour of the extreme poor and the poor and geographically in areas where project activities have not been able to reach to date. DATA RECONCILIATION PROCESS The first step in this review will be to provide orientation of the field staff (SIF and SEF staff, Community Organisers and CDC volunteers). The practical training in collecting the data from the first five CDCs will be the training for these field staff to conduct exercise in all the CDCs. The next step will be to orient the CDC leaders and members about this exercise and involve them in the data collection process.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 59

UPDATING CDC MAPs During the community planning process each CDC has produced a sketch map of their settlement. Similarly in the WBA exercise new maps were produced. These maps will be reviewed by an Urban Planner together with the town teams and updated and redrawn where required. The updated map will form the basis of visualizing the information regarding the activities in the CDC. Using the community volunteers as a resource, the COs and SIF/SEF assistant will supervise the updating of the CDC map. The steps in this exercise are as follows: 1. Household locations and all current community infrastructure assets will be updated by sketching a new map. The lines on the base map will be in black. Community assets like mosque, community center, schools, markets, water bodies will also be marked, for which mapping symbols will be standardized. 2. All households will be numbered chronologically in geographically coherent sub-divisions of the settlement. If primary groups are geographically clustered, number the PG and then the households within the PG, will be identified. 3. While identifying the houses, colour coding will be done according to the WBA classification. The roof of the house will be colour coded red, yellow and green to represent extreme poor, poor and non-poor respectively. 4. The households who are primary group members will be identified with a green coloured (+) inside the walls of the house. 5. The households who are savings and credit group members will be identified with an additional green coloured (+) i.e. (++). This information will also be included in the list of households (see E.1.c below). 6. UPPR Project Support: From the list of community contracts approved and implemented (or ongoing), SIF infrastructure will be marked on the map. a. latrines, tube wells, water reservoirs, street lights, community centers, community latrines, bathroom, market shade, pond, etc. completed will be identified on the map in purple b. sections of drains, pathways, drain slabs etc. should be drawn in purple on the map for which mapping symbols will be standardized. c. each of these assets will be numbered for reference in completing the physical verification exercise. 7. Finally the activities supported by other agencies (besides UPPR) will be identified in blue identifying the agencies by symbols. LIST COMPILATION In order to provide supplemental information the following lists will be prepared using the WBA template. Basically no. 2 below is to be added to the template in the CDC where WBA has been completed. Otherwise, one needs to start with the WBA. List of households in the CDC with WBA disaggregation membership in primary groups membership in savings and credit group household identification number The second category of information in the above list will be to identify with additional columns on the WBA template. beneficiary of SIF activity (latrine, tube well). beneficiary of SEF, identifying all benefits received (apprenticeships, block grant, etc) VERIFICATION OR STATUS OF COMMUNITY ASSETS The next step is for the field staff to visit each of the community asset supported by UPPR and identify the current status of the physical asset. 1. Each of the physical asset constructed with UPPR support will be visited and identified whether they are: (i) working; (ii) not working and cannot be repaired; (iii) not working but can be repaired. These assets will be cross referenced with the physical asset number. 2. This will be recorded in the form for Physical Verification. a. for (b) why the infrastructure cannot be repaired should be written in the remarks column. b. for (c) what needs to be repaired need will be written in the remarks column.

60 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

3. Another step here is to verify the following regarding the SEF delivery status: a. education grant: continuing in school, completed, continued higher studies, discontinued b. block grant: started business, ongoing, static, declined, stopped c. apprenticeship: ongoing, training completed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; unemployed, employed in same business, employed in another business, started own business DISCUSSION WITH CDC After completing the above steps a CDC meeting will be called to provide the information to all the members. 1. The first step in this discussion will be to a. discuss and agree with the new map (D) b. discuss and agree on the lists (E) c. discuss and agree on the community physical asset status (F) 2. The second step will be to discuss about any of the maintenance (if required) and finalise the next course of action to repair them by using the O&M funds. 3. The third step will be to discuss whether the neediest in the community are being addressed through the community organization, savings and credit, SIF and SEF activities. Any gaps or how can CDC effectively target the extreme poor and vulnerable groups as a priority in future will be discussed. 4. Targets for the 2010 programs and indicative targets for 2011 will be prepared regarding - primary group/CDC/cluster/federation institutional building; - strengthening savings and credit and linking with SIF and SEF; - filling the gaps in infrastructure provision and generate labour (and savings) for the members; and, - targeting future SEF support and linking with credit.

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 61

Annex 15: List of MATT-2 PIP relevant to UPPR List of PIPs (Performance Improvement Projects)

1. Improvement of Family Planning Services in Urban Slum Area trough domiciliary Visit. 2. Introducing Environment –friendly household Waste Management System is a selected Community of Dhaka City Corporation. 3. Create Employment opportunity for poor women through Driving Training. 4. Organising Effective Support Services to the Floating Urban Poor (vagrants): Pilot Project at Mirpur Reception Centre (RC). Department of Social Services (DSS), Dhaka. 5. Ensuring provision of treatment facilities for drug addicts at Raly Bagan Slum Area in Narayanganj. 6. Greening the job of the waste pickers in Tejgaon Residential Area of Dhaka City Corporation. 7. Generation supplementary income of distressed women involving them in marking and marketing of home made Pitha and Snacks. 8. Piloting a new Primary Health Care Service Delivery Model for Making Community Health clinics Functional: Two selected CHCs in sherpur Upazilla under Bogra district. 9. Making Allotment Process Transparent and Accountable in the Directorate for Government Accommodation of the Ministry of Housing and Public Works. 10. Creating Income generation activity for Poor Women Victims of Violence through VAW cell of DWA. 11. Developing housing and socio-economic facilities for sweepers residing at of Joypurhat Sugar Mill Area. 12. Piloting Mashroom Cultivation at Savar Secondary schools for achieving “one village one product” in Bangladesh. 13. Improve Pre-school Education for Children of Marginal Working Women at Rampura and Kallyanpur Day-care Centre under DWA. 14. Improving Health Service Delivery through Community Participation & Incentivisation (private practice opportunity): a Model Management Approach for Sonargaon Upazilla Health Complex. 15. A Pilot Project for creating employment opportunity for persons with disabilities (PWDs) by developing computer competency. 16. A Model to Extend Credit Facilities for Poor Women Entrepreneurs through Community Approach at Rupganj Upazilla, Narayanganj. 17. Creating Employment Opportunity for the poor women of Rayerbazar slum, Mohammadpur, Dhaka as domestic aid under a new code of conduct. 18. Ensuring Primary Health Care and WATSAN for Santhal Community at Dinajpur. 19. Formation and Implementation of a Fire code for the Slum Area: A Pilot Project.

List of Super-pips (Projects intended to have a national impact) 1. 2. 3.

Facilitating overseas employment of poor workers by providing institutional loan to meet service charge and other travel related expenses Improving the cleanliness status of Ward No. 5 in DCC involving community people Improvement of urban governance through community participation in Ghorasal Municipality

62 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 63

CTG

TOTAL

Table 1: Number of facilities / linear meters Latrine 7,669 854 Community Latrine 6 Footpath (meter) 87,370 3,547 Drain (meter) 33,087 1,550 Drain Slab 20 Tubewell 1,012 31 Platform 327 Bathroom 67 Water Reservoir 42 31 Street Light Post 49 Building Contracts 34 1 Market Shade 20 Pond Excavation 1 Pond Stair 2 Table 2: Asset value '000 Taka Latrine 127,627 13,768 Community Latrine 916 Footpath (meter) 67,279 1,845 Drain (meter) 28,517 1,094 Drain Slab 18 Tubewell 39,433 3,577 Platform 4,110 Bathroom 1,216 Water Reservoir 2,565 1,700 Street Light Post 390 Building Contracts 13,965 347 Market Shade 154 Pond Excavation 165 Pond Stair 50 TOTAL 286,405 22,331 19,890

709

6,914

3,445

7,557 4,932

2,458 2,610

165 50 18,233

3,705 659

4,820

1,846

12,081

180

1 2

4,908 355

11,323 7,250

DHK

2,854 1,746

KLN 299

791

RAJ

TNG 12,418

6,067

3,644 916 1,791

188 6 1,792

MMS 23,147

6,927

4,579

2,313 901

8,426

203

2,193 507

490

RNP 8,676

4,871 2,459 18 252 146

930

4,822 1,758 20 13 40

BRL 34,890

2,053

434

9,779

6,372 371

15,881

165

7,508 562

981

NRG 22,640

1,486

1,398 3,187

6,645 5,050

4,876

12 32

8,504 3,120

276

JSR 8,818

901

7,917

440

CML 10,736

3,262

235 158

7,081

318 182

379

8,575

527

212

7,835

150

476

DNP

Annex 16: Town-wise Data on SIF Community Contracts BGR 31,566

390 1,898

1,788 752 783

8,444 5,517

11,994

49 3

142 250 51

14,612 9,180

754

GPG 15,525

154

865

7,098 407

6,925

8,865 374

419

KST 17,364

386

131 25

6,225 3,336

7,260

6 5

9,358 5,696

379

HBG 8,169

868

2,318

1,254

3,728

965

223

16,516

625

6,253 1,023

8,615

5,653 809

576

SRG

64 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

TOTAL

Table 1: Compont value BDT '000 improved water supply/ hygiene 47,324 improved sanitation 128,543 improve access & environment 96,204 sheltered space 14,119 improve urban food production 215 TOTAL 286,405 Table 1: Component value % improved water supply/ hygiene 45 improved sanitation 34 improve access & environment 17 sheltered space 5 improve urban food production 0 TOTAL 100 Table 1: Component by Priority improved water supply/ hygiene 1 improved sanitation 2 improve access & environment 3 sheltered space 4 improve urban food production 5 Average Unit Costs '000 Taka Latrine 17 Community Latrine 153 Footpath (meter) 1 Drain (meter) 1 Drain Slab 1 Tubewell 39 Platform 13 Bathroom 18 Water Reservoir 61 Street Light Post 8 Building Contracts 411 Market Shade 8 Pond Excavation 165 Pond Stair 25

DHK

CTG

2 1 3 3 3 21 1 1

1 3 2 4 5

1 1

347

115 55

27 73 0 0 0 100

62 13 24 2 0 100

5,277 0 13,768 1,846 2,939 5,068 347 0 0 0 22,331 6,914

KLN

165 25

1 1

2 1 3 5 4

26 68 4 0 1 100

709 4,820 12,489 0 215 18,233

RAJ

1 2

1 2 3 4 4

61 22 17 0 0 100

3,445 12,081 4,364 0 0 19,890

TNG

404

19 153 1

2 3 1 4 4

37 14 49 0 0 100

6,067 4,561 1,791 0 0 12,418

MMS

866

1 2

1 4 3 2 5

36 14 20 30 0 100

4,579 8,426 3,215 6,927 0 23,147

RNP

1 1 1 19

2 1 3 4 4

11 85 5 0 0 100

398 930 7,348 0 0 8,676

BRL

171

1 1

1 3 2 4 5

46 19 29 6 0 100

10,212 15,881 6,743 2,053 0 34,890

NRG

743

100

116

1 2

2 1 3 4 5

22 52 20 7 0 100

4,584 4,876 11,695 1,486 0 22,640

JSR

1 3 2 3 3

90 0 10 0 0 100

901 7,917 0 0 0 8,818

CML

1 1

1 3 2 4 4

66 4 30 0 0 100

3,262 7,081 393 0 0 10,736

DNP

1 3 2 4 4

91 2 6 0 0 100

527 7,835 212 0 0 8,575

BGR

3 15 8 633

1 1

2 1 3 4 5

38 45 11 6 0 100

3,322 11,994 14,352 1,898 0 31,566

GPG

75 79

1 1

2 1 3 4 5

45 48 6 1 0 100

941 6,925 7,505 154 0 15,525

KST

193

1 1

2 1 4 3 5

42 55 1 2 0 100

157 7,260 9,562 386 0 17,364

HBG

145

1 3 2 4 5

46 15 28 11 0 100

2,318 3,728 1,254 868 0 8,169

1 1

1 2 3 4 4

52 44 4 0 0 100

625 8,615 7,276 0 0 16,516

SRG

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 65

DHK

CTG

TOTAL

Percent Budget by Activitiy and Towns Latrine 44.6 61.7 26.7 Community Latrine 0.3 Footpath (meter) 23.5 8.3 35.6 Drain (meter) 10.0 4.9 37.7 Drain Slab 0.0 Tubewell 13.8 16.0 Platform 1.4 7.6 Bathroom 0.4 Water Reservoir 0.9 Street Light Post 0.1 Building Contracts 4.9 1.6 Market Shade 0.1 Pond Excavation 0.1 Pond Stair 0.0 TOTAL 100.0 100 100 Budget Activity '000 Taka Total Budget 274,000 22,663 7,230 TOTAL Contract Value 286,405 22,331 6,914 % Total Contract value 100 8 2 Implementation Rate 105 99 96 No of Contracts 565 55 Town Summary 8 No of CDCs 540 55 8 Households '000 227 15 3 Population '000 1,013 73 11 Per CDC allocation '000 530 406 864 Per Household 2,334 Per person allocation 283 1,493 305 632 allocation 1,260 18.6 3.3 17.3

100 19,887 19,890 7 100 37 36 13 56 552 1,495 352

41.4 27.0 3.9

0.9 0.3 100 18,232 18,233 6 100 49 48 10 43 380 1,852 422

KLN

60.7

RAJ

26.4

TNG 17 3 13 730 4,961 992

9,314 12,418 4 133 17

100

48.9

29.3 7.4 14.4

MMS 30 23 105 772 1,001 221

19,402 23,147 8 119 34

100

29.9

19.8

10.0 3.9

36.4

RNP 14 6 21 620 1,477 407

5,892 8,676 3 147 14

100

1.7

56.1 28.3 0.2 2.9

10.7

BRL 65 22 99 537 1,556 354

34,820 34,890 12 100 65

100

5.9

1.2

28.0

18.3 1.1

45.5

NRG 31 20 88 730 1,136 257

22,631 22,640 8 100 43

100

6.6

14.1

6.2

29.3 22.3

21.5

JSR 24 6 26 367 1,403 337

4,844 8,818 3 182 24

100

10.2

89.8

CML 24 6 29 447 1,709 377

12,432 10,736 4 86 24

100

30.4

2.2 1.5

66.0

DNP 17 6 28 504 1,356 311

7,461 8,575 3 115 17

100

6.1

2.5

91.4

BGR 44 33 143 717 964 220

30,345 31,566 11 104 45

100

2.4 2.5 1.2 6.0

5.7

26.7 17.5

38.0

GPG 28 9 43 554 1,644 363

15,416 15,525 5 101 31

100

1.0

0.5 5.6

45.7 2.6

44.6

KST 34 19 83 511 934 208

17,609 17,364 6 99 37

100

2.2

0.1

0.8

35.9 19.2

41.8

HBG 19 16 78 430 508 105

8,057 8,169 3 101 19

100

10.6

28.4

15.4

45.6

46 17 74 359 997 223

17,765 16,516 6 93 46

100

3.8

37.9 6.2

52.2

SRG

66 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

CTG

TOTAL

Table 1a â&#x20AC;&#x201C; No. of Beneficiaries Apprenticeship 29,112 5418 Block Grant 8,037 343 Education Support 6,735 Social Development 153,973 32993 TOTAL 197,857 38,754 Table 1b - % beneficiaries Apprenticeship 15 14 Block Grant 4 1 Education Support 3 0 TOTAL 78 85 Table 2 - % Female Beneficiaries Apprenticeship 61 51 Block Grant 97 100 Education Support 77 Social Development 89 99 TOTAL 84 93 Table 3 - Contract Value '000 Taka Apprenticeship 66,867 5,104 Block Grant 36,704 1,714 Education Support 37,265 Social Development 53,401 6,968 TOTAL 194,237 13,787 As % of total 100 7 23 21 9 46 68 99 67 64 73 5,301 2,539 985 864 9,689 5

100 95

97 397 2,582 3,076 2

60 62

2317 2,450 0 5 0 95

DHK

576 520 225 1135 2,456

KLN

6 127

RAJ 3,426 5,124 9,615 447 18,612 10

49 98 82 93 78

24 21 48 7

1004 885 2021 282 4,192

TNG 899 1,117 409 162 2,587 1

97 100 52 76 89

54 13 4 30

1099 266 79 607 2,051

MMS 11,203 5,942 11,007 20,799 48,951 25

92 98 61 96 95

19 2 3 76

10555 1289 1439 42645 55,928

RNP 3,643 781 728 662 5,814 3

64 94 76 100 81

40 16 16 29

387 154 156 281 978

BRL 9,171 2,752 1,963 8,626 22,512 12

11 88 66 100 86

15 2 0 83

6149 724 195 33802 40,870

NRG 8,167 740 2,608 1,300 12,815 7

83 96 100 100 96

20 3 13 64

873 138 552 2762 4,325

JSR 1,800 476 907 167 3,350 2

54 100 77 100 86

20 9 21 50

206 92 214 512 1,024

674 4,013 2

2,306 1,033

50 51

63 99

3 3 0 94

6878 7,318

245 195

CML

Annex 17: Town-wise Data on SEF Community Contracts

DNP 609 5,432 3

2,874 1,949

52 55

61 100

5 6 0 89

5577 6,262

302 383

BGR 8,862 2,273 2,084 6,143 19,362 10

57 100 100 64 65

4 2 2 92

940 442 441 21215 23,038

GPG 4,263 1,479 2,020 7,762 4

99 78 87 92

0 50 11 39

1429 314 1100 2,843

KST 857 2,514 2,755 1,125 7,250 4

50 99 71 81 74

25 13 14 48

940 469 517 1811 3,737

HBG 3,662 2

1,106 2,090 466

79 91 91

20 63 17 0

606

123 380 103

2,051 1,001 2,259 253 5,564 3

44 99 69 43 67

28 20 47 5

289 201 479 56 1,025

SRG

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 67

CTG

TOTAL

Total Budget % SEF Budget 2009 TOT. Contract Value % Contract value Implementation Rate No of Contracts

173,697 100 194,237 100 112 985

18,455 11 13,787 7 75 65

Table 4 - Avg Unit Costs '000 Taka Apprenticeship 10,312 3,826 Block Grant 4,998 4,893 Education Support 6,585 Social Development 444 211 TOTAL 1,287 408 Table 5 - Percent Contract by Activity Apprenticeship 34 37 Block Grant 19 12 Education Support 19 Social Development 27 51 TOTAL 100 100 Table 6 - Budget '000 Taka 2,085 1 3,076 2 148 16

8,592 5 9,689 5 113 57

55 26 10 9 100

3 13 84 100

1,636 5,240

5,368 5,010

4,377

4,882

3,127

DHK

9,204

KLN

16,183

RAJ

18,155 10 18,612 10 103 78

2,023 1 2,587 1 128 86

35 43 16 6 100

5,174 267 1,261

10,175 1,886 10,328 18 28 52 2 100

4,200

818

TNG

14,233

13,175

MMS

34,476 20 48,951 25 142 140

23 12 22 42 100

7,649 525 926

4,610

1,061

RNP

3,535 2 5,814 3 164 63

63 13 13 11 100

4,669 2,355 5,945

5,069

9,415

BSL

19,511 11 22,512 12 115 56

41 12 9 38 100

10,069 270 663

3,801

8,809

NRG

12,699 7 12,815 7 101 63

64 6 20 10 100

4,725 471 2,970

5,780

9,355

JSR

2,565 1 3,350 2 131 40

54 14 27 5 100

4,239 326 3,281

5,171

8,868

CML

3,536 2 4,013 2 113 65

17 100

57 26

551 2,411

5,295

9,411

DNP

4,742 3 5,432 3 115 55

11 100

53 36

1,055 4,304

5,088

9,517

BGR

19,084 11 19,362 10 101 83

46 12 11 32 100

4,725 1,005 2,440

5,144

9,428

GPG

6,129 4 7,762 4 127 21

55 19 26 100

4,710 2,010 2,825

2,983

KST

7,331 4 7,250 4 99 78

12 35 38 16 100

5,328 846 3,023

5,359

10,326

HBG

3,618 2 3,662 2 101 14

100

30 57 13

6,042

4,524

5,500

8,989

7,162 4 5,564 3 78 55

37 18 41 5 100

4,717 4,523 5,429

4,980

7,096

SRG

68 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

UGIIP-2

UGIIP-1

ILO TREE

Practical Action

ADPC

NDBUS

UPHCP

Coke

ILO

Community Policing

CARE

Total

RAJ

Total

CTG

KLN

BRL 1

KST 1

GPG 0

BGR 1

SRG 1

MMS 1

HBG 0

NRG 0

DHK

TNG 0

CML 1

JSR

RNP 1

DNP 1

DHK 1

SHT 1

GZP 1

SVR

Annex 18: Location of National Level Partnership

TGL 0

NOG 0

FEN 1

CNP 1

SAT 0

JND 1

FRP 1

SDP 0

PAB

Annex 19: Formalised Local Partnerships by Town

CTG DHK KLN SHT RAJ TNG MMS RNP BRL NRG JSR CML DNP NBG BGR TGL SVR GZP NOG GPG KST 8

Totals

GoB-Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corp

GoB-Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute

GoB-Department of Agriculture

GoB-Department of Fisheries

GoB-Department of Livestock (DLS)

GoB-Department of Youth Development

GoB-Family Planning Department

GoB-Social Services Department

GoB-Women Technical Training Center (WTTC)

HOSPITAL-Bogra Christian Hospital

HOSPITAL-Sadar Hospital

NGO-ABC Foundation

NGO-Aparajeobangla

NGO-AVAS

NGO-Banchte Shekha

NGO-Barendra Unnayan Prochesta

NGO-BLAST

NGO-BSCIC

NGO-CAP

NGO-CHASHA Mushroom Culture Dev. Center

NGO-Christ Church Technical School

NGO-Community EyeCare &Research Centre

NGO-Deshgori

NGO-Eye Hospital

NGO-Food For Hungry

NGO-Gram Bikash Songstha

NGO-Intellectually Disable Children Educ. Prgm

NGO-Jyoti

NGO-Lions Eye Hospital

NGO-Madaripur Legal Aid Association

NGO-Marie Stopes

NGO-NDBUS

NGO-PCAR

NGO-Rural Reconstruction Foundation (RRF)

NGO-Sadar Upazilla Disable Development Parishad

NGO-SAS

NGO-Smiling Sun

NGO-Surer Dhara

NGO-UCEP

NGO-UPHCP

NGO-VERC

NGO-Women Lawyear Association

NGO-Yes â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Bangladesh

1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 69

Annex 20: Investing in Youth – the Future The UPPR household survey in seven towns found that youth, age 15 to 24, comprise anout 20 percent of the population. Yet to date UPPR has not targeted any activity specifically at youth. Investing in youth has important economic and social returns such as future productivity of the workforce and poverty alleviation. The choices young people make—with regard to sex and reproduction as well as to other critical aspects of their lives—will determine the size, health and prosperity of Bangladesh’s future urban population. Under a new UPPR initiative, youth will become civically engaged in their neighbourhood. Youth groups will be provided training in life skills activities and will be encouraged to be actively involved in the social, cultural, sporting and economic life of their communities. The intense engagement of young women and men in local sporting, cultural, educational and environment projects will help is positive contribution by the youth and their constructive involvement in community activities. Furthermore, the principles of consultation, social inclusion, participation, service to the community, the common good, etc. will be promoted. Promoting Youth Leadership – In each participating location, the CDCs will select a pair (female and male) as Volunteer Youth Coordinators from among the most active girls and boys in the community. These young women and men will work on a voluntary basis with the purpose of serving their community. They may, however, receive incentives such as cost-recovery allowances. These pairs of coordinators will meet at the city level every five weeks to receive training, advice and support so that they can return to the communities and lead the youth activities. Formation of Local Youth Groups – Under the sponsorship of the participating CDCs, Local Youth Councils will be established, bringing together all youth between the age of 16 to 24 years in the community to be members. Capacity-Building – The members of the Local Youth Groups will be provided training in important social skills such as service-oriented leadership, governance, conflict-resolution, development planning, consultation, management, resource-mobilization, community education, advocacy and networking and other civic education activities as identified by the youth group members. To strengthen the learning process, training will be linked to specific activities, which the girls and boys will implement in the community, thus allowing local youth to learn and grow in the process. Community Service - The program will seek to instil a spirit of volunteerism and service in the participating youth. At the grassroots level, situational assessment, civic education courses, mobilization and Programme activities will be done directly by the youth. In this way they will gain valuable life-skills, knowledge, values and social competencies through active participation. Self- Initiative Projects - As part of the each training component, the participants will be asked to identify concrete constructive activities they can perform in their communities with their own initiative. Self-initiative activities will be implemented under the theme of “Our Community, Our Pride”. The youth will be encouraged to be loyal to their CDCs and plan their activities within the framework of their Community Action Plan. When executing their projects, they will seek support from the rest of the community. Promotion of Economic Activities and Employment – UPPR will provide support to establish vocational and on-thejob skills building programs, to learn marketable skills and to improve managerial and professional skills. Small grants – Every six months, UPPR will provide a small grant of up to $1,000 per project on competitive basis to CDCs proposing an interesting, innovative initiative to improve the living environment in their community, disseminate new knowledge and improve community solidarity. Education, Arts and Sports Promotion – Youth will be encouraged to become active leaders in the education of their peers, families and communities. They will also be encouraged to impart their newly acquired knowledge and skills to the children and family members, thus playing a critical role in the development of their younger and more vulnerable peers. Arts, music and theatre will be used by the youth in community gatherings. Sports will be another area of focus to allow young people to gain leadership, discipline, sportsmanship and team skills. This will provide them constructive outlets to enhance their social interactions, physical well-being, and quality of life.

70 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 71

591

394

4.5

40.0

% disabled of homeless

% female of disabled

32.0

Sex ratio of Girl< 15 yrs (%)

Disable Female (15+,,15)

68.0

Sex ratio of Boy< 15 yrs (%)

Disable Male (15+;<15)

12.7

% Children of homeless

985

887

Girl <15 yrs

Total Disable

1881

Boy <15 yrs

22.6

2768

Sex ratio Female 15yrs+ (%)

Total Children

82.8

77.4

Sex ratio of Male 15 yrs+ (%)

4087

Female 15yrs+

% Adult of homeless

13966

0.39

% of Non slum Poor

Male 15yrs +

5368

Homeless Female Population

18053

16438

Homeless Male Population

Total Able Adult

5632

21806

Projected Pop 2009 (000)

Total

Total Homeless Population

Town

42.2

13.6

119

163

282

38.5

61.5

6.5

135

50.7

49.3

79.9

838

816

1654

0.18

1009

1062

2071

1133

KLN

38.3

3.9

128

44.0

56.0

12.9

185

235

420

21.3

78.7

83.2

577

2132

2709

0.57

811

2446

3257

574

RAJ

37.8

2.2

28.3

71.7

11.5

172

240

16.3

83.7

86.3

293

1505

1798

0.63

378

1705

2083

330

TNG

31.9

2.3

29.8

70.2

16.3

231

329

24.3

75.7

81.4

400

1244

1644

0.46

513

1507

2020

440

MMS

45.0

3.4

8.5

91.5

22.8

249

272

22.7

77.3

73.9

200

682

882

0.41

241

953

1194

294

RNP

40.0

5.8

30.7

69.3

19.8

165

238

25.4

74.6

74.4

228

669

897

0.28

329

876

1205

428

BRL

32.7

8.5

34.7

65.3

11.1

25.5

74.5

80.4

133

388

521

0.24

176

472

648

270

NRG

44.1

5.4

16.7

83.3

8.3

15.3

84.7

86.3

144

795

939

0.52

185

903

1088

209

JSR

44.4

7.4

2.4

97.6

11.4

29.9

70.1

81.2

209

298

0.19

102

265

367

197

CML

41.3

7.3

38.5

61.5

20.8

130

48.9

51.1

71.9

220

230

450

0.34

289

337

626

184

DNP

33.3

4.1

34.6

65.4

7.1

17.5

82.5

88.8

113

534

647

0.24

141

588

729

298

BGR

32.0

2.4

35.0

65.0

28.9

106

197

303

16.9

83.1

68.8

122

600

722

0.86

236

814

1050

122

GPG

27.3

3.0

51.9

48.1

7.2

21.4

78.6

89.8

139

510

649

0.51

172

551

723

141

KST

21.6

9.9

47.6

52.4

16.9

32.7

67.3

73.1

183

272

0.40

127

245

372

HBG

Annex 21: Results of Homeless People Mapping in 20 Towns

64.5

3.4

41.0

59.0

11.6

105

24.3

75.7

85.0

187

583

770

0.58

250

656

906

156

SRG

66.7

0.6

41.2

58.8

3.3

10.4

89.6

96.2

448

500

0.35

459

520

150

TNG

78.6

3.8

11.1

88.9

4.9

10.7

89.3

91.3

299

335

0.25

318

367

146

SVR

33.3

0.2

43.3

56.7

6.6

127

6.9

93.1

93.2

123

1664

1787

1.32

179

1738

1917

145

GZP

46.2

3.8

15.2

84.8

13.3

19.2

80.8

82.9

232

287

0.24

278

346

144

NOG

12.5

2.5

11.8

88.2

5.4

16.8

83.2

92.1

243

292

0.18

265

317

179

CNP

72 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 95 222 229 60 26 75 37 10 29 14 23 17 25 7 17 965

Community Action Plan at CDC level

Review of Community Action Plan Contract Management Training

Training on Construction Works

Exchange Visit/Experience Sharing

Cluster/Town Level Work Plan Gender and Leadership Training

Sensitisation Workshop/Meeting

Awareness Raising on Social Issue

Hygiene Promotion Training/Campaign

Mentor/Group Management Training

Survey/Mapping workshops/training Partnership/Coordination Building

Enterprise Development Training

Total Events

54830

653

Enterprise Development Training

Total Beneficiaries

904 385

971 191

Cluster/Town Level Work Plan Gender and Leadership Training

417

4387

Exchange Visit/Experience Sharing

Survey/Mapping workshops/training Partnership/Coordination Building

729

Training on Construction Works

Mentor/Group Management Training

2355

Contract Management Training

2468

4519

Review of Community Action Plan

16445 11225

4676

Community Action Plan at CDC level

Awareness Raising on Social Issue Hygiene Promotion Training/Campaign

2534

Training on Urban Agriculture

Sensitisation Workshop/Meeting

1971

Savings & Credit Management Training

NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES

Training on Urban Agriculture

Total

DELIVERED TRAINING EVENTS Savings & Credit Management Training

CTG 1332

0 0

208 0

524

251

242

0 0

8 0

0 15

KLN 1874

0 0

998

181 0

162

228

187

0 0

6 0

0 1

RAJ 14064

0 0

400 11225

100

49 0

862

343

315

350

224

0 0

9 0

4 8

TNG 626

0 0

218

125

198

0 0

0 2

MMS 20638

332 228

16000 0

252

55 0

2260

175

705

271

261

163

9 4

1 0

47 6

RNP 1662

64 0

0 0

215

0 0

1164

2 0

0 0

BRL 1810

0 0

280

0 22

1105

275

0 0

0 1

65 0

NRG 1166

0 0

102

493

174

252

112

0 0

29 1

JSR 872

24 0

0 0

0 85

432

261

1 0

0 4

0 0

1655

355 0

45 0

47 84

682

152

260

9 0

2 5

0 0

CML

Annex 22: Training Events and Beneficiaries by Town

BGR 2513

378

70 0

0 0

36 0

119

1020

593

200

2 0

1 0

0 22

GPG 2182

186

24 77

198

0 0

300

178 0

297

226

497

1 2

6 0

0 1

KST 1567

35 80

0 0

244

0 0

464

340

135

169

1 1

0 0

19 0

SRG 2006

0 0

37 0

1236

414

0 0

1 0

63 3

863

0 0

180 0

135

325

0 0

3 0

2 1

HBG

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 73

Beneficiaries - Total Savings and Credit Management Training Training on Urban Agriculture Community Action Plan at CDC level Review of Community Action Plan Contract Management Training Training on Construction Works Exchange Visit/Experience Sharing Cluster/Town Level Work Plan Gender and Leadership Training Sensitization Workshop/Meeting Awareness Raising on Social Issue Hygiene Promotion Training/Campaign Mentor/Group Management Training Survey/Mapping workshops/training Partnership/Coordination Building Enterprise Development Training Total Beneficiaries % Female Beneficiaries Savings and Credit Management Training Training on Urban Agriculture Community Action Plan at CDC level Review of Community Action Plan Contract Management Training Training on Construction Works Exchange Visit/Experience Sharing Cluster/Town Level Work Plan Gender and Leadership Training Sensitisation Workshop/Meeting Awareness Raising on Social Issue Hygiene Promotion Training/Campaign Mentor/Group Management Training Survey/Mapping workshops/training Partnership/Coordination Building Enterprise Development Training 100 92 86 94 82 93 76 88 100 79 73 78 98 87 51 77

1971 2534 4670 4519 2355 729 4387 971 224 2468 16445 11222 417 904 385 653 54854 357

601

43 100

100

98 79 100 78

406

100 100

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

280 15442

17 10052

Office Bearer/leader

Project staff 1130

1776

28 400 11220

General Member 361 297

1971 397 14 2856 1191 486 849 389 191 1033

69 57

63 80

80 356 2229

1407 45

341

79 47

61 76

18999

548 305

16000

864 488

774

Councilor/CDC office bearers/ GO staffs/ project staffs/ employer

Community People

Total

Annex 23: Training by Project Type and Beneficiary Type General Member & Community people 82

493

94 92

47 24

Officer bearer and member

Mentors

91 80 65 100 100

7162

390 243 1716 94 33

4656

74 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

MP- Member of Parliament PD- Project Director NPC- National Project Coordinator DC- Deputy Commissioner TM- Town Manager SEE- Socio Economic Expert SEE- Socio Economic Assistant

Abbreviations:

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

2 1 1 14 1 4 1 5 3 10

2 2 2 1 1 1

1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3

Days

SIE- Settlement Improvement Expert CDO- Community Development Officer CO- Community Organizer EPC- Extreme Poverty Coordinator M& E Coordinator- Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator TC- Training Coordinator SIA- Settlement Improvement Assistant

Workshop on Logframe of UPPR Planning and Budget Workshop Workshop on Logframe of UPPR (Chittagong) Workshop on Logframe of UPPR (Dhaka) Planning and Budget Workshop Quarterly Program Review Workshop Program Strategic Meeting Training on climate change, Impacts, Issues & adaptation for BGD w/ focus on WSS Technical Coordination Meeting Training on Settlement Mapping (Gopalganj) Planning and Budget Revision Meeting Training on Identification/Mapping of Non-Slum Extreme Poor Staff Meeting at Head Quarter Workshop Towards developing a strategy for extreme urban poverty reduction Review Workshop on Urban Agriculture Training on Identification of Non-Slum Extreme Poor Training on Identification/Mapping of Non-Slum Extreme Poor Designing and Implementing Social Transfer Programmes Urban sanitation and its challenges Workshop on Asian and Pacific City Census Data Analysis Training on Household Members Survey Develop training module on HH and HH Member Survey Training on Project Implementation for Community Organizers Exposure visit to Thailand organized by AIT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14

Title of the Course

7-Oct-09 11-Oct-09 13-Oct-09 25-Oct-09 27-Oct-09 1-Dec-09 7-Dec-09 10-Dec-09 13-Dec-09 20-Dec-09

1-Aug-09 3-Aug-09 19-Aug-09 7-Sep-09 30-Sep-09 4-Oct-09

19-Feb-09 25-Feb-09 8-Mar-09 9-Mar-09 15-Mar-09 30-Apr-09 16-May-09 19-Jul-09

Date

UAE TM, SEE, CO TM, SEE, CO EPC SEE M&E Coordinator Community Members TC and SEE CO MP, DS, DC,LGI,UPPR & CDC

SEE, SEA TM, SIA, CO TM, SEE TM, SEE, CO All Staff members at HQ UN,INGO,UPPR

Participants Who UN,INGO,UPPR Sr.staff town & HQ UNDP,UPPR & community UPPRP staff Sr.staff town & HQ All TMs Sr. Management, UPPR SEE

Annex 24: Headquarter Training in 2009

10 23 26 1 1 1 8 1 24 18

29 35 38 25 49 35

# 27 52 25 23 43 18 11 14

UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP Thailand ITN-BUET Thailand UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP AIT Thailand

UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP

Organised by UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP UPPRP ITN-BUET

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 75

Output 1 Urban poor communities* mobilised and supported to form representative, inclusive and wellmanaged groups.

The most vulnerable groups have improved life conditions, skills, services and decent job opportunities

Poor urban communities* supported to create healthy and secure living environments.

Output 2

Outputs

(Activities in ATLAS)

Outcome

( Project ID in ATLAS )

UNDP(UNHAB) UNDP(UNHAB) UNDP(UNHAB)

UNDP

2.5 Facilitate to improve access to affordable and approved health service providers

2.6 Technical Assistance Output 2

UNDP

UNDP(UNHAB)

DFID DFID DFID

DFID

UNDP(UNHAB)

DFID DFID DFID

LGED UNDP

DFID

UNDP

LGED

DFID

LGED

DFID

UNDP DFID

DFID DFID DFID

LGED LGED LGED

UNDP

DFID DFID

Source of Fund

UNDP LGED

Responsible Party

2.4 Support improvements in housing conditions.

2.2 Support communities to have access to town level service networks and facilities 2.3 Support communities to obtain improved security of tenure

2.1 Support communities to meet demands for water supply, sanitation, drainage, electricity and public lighting, waste management, road access and community facilities

1.2 Provide capacity building and technical support for establishment of community savings groups and preparation of community action plans, databases and community proposals for physical, economic and social development. (Work in 16 towns plus preparatory work in Dhaka City Corporation)

1.1 Identify all urban poor settlements and slum and non-slum extremely poor groups in project towns and provide support for formation of community organizations and cross-community associations. (Initiate work in 16 towns plus preparatory work in Dhaka City Corporation)

(Detailed results to be produced for achievement of each output not to be inc. In ATLAS)

Activities

71400 71400 71400

71400

71200

72600

63400

63400 71400

72100

63400

72100

71400

63400 63400 63400

71400 63400

A/C Code & Description

CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv

CntractSrv

Intl Cnslt

Grants

Lrning Cst

Lrning Cst CntractSrv

Contr-Cmpy

Lrning Cst

Contr-Cmpy

CntractSrv

Lrning Cst Lrning Cst Lrning Cst

CntractSrv Lrning Cst

Description

Associate Project Coordinator Settlement Improvement Experts Settlement Improvement Assistants Sub Total OUTPUT 1 TOTAL

Urban Planning Expert Sub Total Community Health Expert Sub Total

Security of Tenure Adviser Sub Total

Environmental management and health training Settlements Improvement Fund Sub Total

Support to extremely poor (UN Agency) Savings and credit management training Social Protection and Empowerment of Vulnerable Groups Com Action Plan workshops Community Organisers Sub Total OUTPUT 1 TOTAL

Extreme Poverty Expert Training and support for socioeconomic survey Training for CDC Federations Training for CDC Clusters Support com baseline and follow-up surveys Community Organisers Sub Total

Annex 25: 2009 Budget and Expenditure Details

15,000 30,406 147,895 193,301 4,295,702

29,930 29,930 4,471 4,471

45,000 45,000

4,000,000 4,023,000

23,000

23,000 244,041 310,041 664,949

10,000

23,000

10,000

244,041 354,909

23,000 23,000 32,925

8,943 23,000

Budget 09

21,479 179,164 200,643 4,478,503

19,143 19,143 0

46,545 46,545

4,181,882 4,212,172

30,290

30,294 376,312 436,901 567,920

30,295 -

131,019

30,267 30,268 40,217

30,267

Expenditure 09

76 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Urban poor and extremely poor people supported to acquire the resources, knowledge and skills needed to increase their incomes and assets.

DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID

UNDP UNDP

UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP LGED

3.5 Support provision of and access to all levels of formal and informal education, especially for women and girls, through partnerships

3.6 Support access to financial services for productive and non-productive purposes Technical Assistance Output 3

Micro Capital Grants Output 3

UNDP UNDP

DFID

UNDP

3.4 Support communities to overcome social and economic problems

DFID UNDP

DFID DFID

DFID

DFID DFID DFID

UNDP UNDP UNDP

3.3 Promote urban and peri-urban food

(Access to funds from MCG under Activity 2.1)

DFID DFID DFID

DFID

LGED UNDP LGED UNDP

DFID

Source of Fund

UNDP

Responsible Party

3.2 Promote development of enterprises through access to finance, markets and Technology

3.1. Facilitate to improve access to wage employment opportunities through skills development and links to private sector

Output 3

Activities

(Detailed results to be produced for achievement of each output not to be inc. In ATLAS)

Outputs

(Activities in ATLAS)

Outcome

( Project ID in ATLAS )

72600 72600

71400 71400 71400 63400

71400

71200 71400

71400 72100

71400

72100 71400 71400

72100 63400 72100

63400

72100

A/C Code & Description

Grants Grants

CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv Lrning Cst

CntractSrv

Intl Cnslt CntractSrv

CntractSrv Contr-Cmpy

CntractSrv

Contr-Cmpy CntractSrv CntractSrv

Contr-Cmpy Lrning Cst Contr-Cmpy

Lrning Cst

Contr-Cmpy

Financial Services Adviser Employment and Enterprise Development Expert Employment and Enterprise Development Experts Financial Services Experts Socio-Economic Experts Socio-Economic Assistants Support for community workshops Sub Total Socio-Economic Fund Socio-Economic Fund Sub Total OUTPUT 3 TOTAL

Access to Micro Capital Grants

Sub Total Community Education Expert Under-privileged children education and training (UCEP) Sub Total

Community Security Expert

Sub Total Urban Agriculture Support (FAO) Urban Agriculture Coordinator Urban Agriculture Expert Sub Total

Entrepreneur mentoring Business market surveys Employment and entrepreneur programme support (CARE)

Support for Employment of Women and Youth Community skills training Sub Total

Description

4,471 203,004 105,561 23,000 401,402 1,678,168 900,000 2,578,168 3,296,535

5,366

182,429 79,031 30,265 308,907 1,755,943 1,079,635 2,835,578 3,318,763

17,182 -

59,977

45,000 15,000

15,331 16,891 107,386 124,277

15,331 -

34,670 34,670

Expenditure 09

0 9,977 50,000

66,000 20,000 20,672 107,315 147,987

18,000 0 48,000

23,000 43,000

20,000

Budget 09

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 77

Development and implementation of pro-poor policies and practices supported in partnership with others.

DFID

UNDP

UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP

UNDP

4.11 Establish links to international civil society and government urban poverty reduction groups

4.12 Inform and influence GoB to develop and implement pro-poor urban development strategies in collaboration with other partners Technical Assistance Output 4

UNDP

4.11 Establish links to international civil society and government urban poverty reduction groups

DFID DFID DFID DFID

DFID

UNDP

DFID DFID

UNDP UNDP

4.10 Support establishment of national Government/donor urban poverty partnership

DFID

UNDP

4.7 Facilitate urban poor policy dialogue through networking of towns and associations of elected representatives, local government officials and community leaders 4.8 Development and implementation of communications strategy for Programme information sharing, advocacy and policy dialogue 4.9 Support research and documentation of local and international best practices

DFID

LGED DFID DFID DFID DFID

DFID DFID

UNDP LGED

UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP

DFID

LGED UNDP(UNHAB)

DFID

UNDP

LGED

DFID

Source of Fund

UNDP

Responsible Party

4.6 Support local, national and regional urban poverty policy workshops and seminars for experience sharing

4.4 Establish local or national funding mechanisms for sustainable support to urban poor communities 4.5 Support experience sharing within towns, between towns and through international exchange visits

4.3 Develop capacities of elected representatives, local government officials and project staff to respond to needs of urban poor

4.1 Support formation of town-level community, local government, private sector and civil society partnerships 4.2 Support the development and implementation of town poverty reduction and economic development strategies

Output 4:

Activities

(Detailed results to be produced for achievement of each output not to be inc. In ATLAS)

Outputs

(Activities in ATLAS)

Outcome

( Project ID in ATLAS )

71200 71200 71400 71400

63400

72100

71300 71300

63400 63400 63400 63400

63400

63400 63400

71600

63400

71300

A/C Code & Description

Intl Cnslt Intl Cnslt CntractSrv CntractSrv

Lrning Cst

Contr-Cmpy

Lcl Cnslts Lcl Cnslts

Lrning Cst Lrning Cst Lrning Cst Lrning Cst

Lrning Cst

Lrning Cst Lrning Cst

Travel

Lrning Cst

Lcl Cnslts

Extreme Poverty Adviser Local Economic Development Adviser Project Associate/Adovacy Extreme Poverty Coordinator Sub Total OUTPUT 4 TOTAL

Incoming visitors exchange programme Sub Total

Support to Government and donor urban poverty partnership Sub Total

Project best practices research Sub Total

Policy research and documentation

Communications and media Communications and media (Policy) Sub Total

International Policy Conferences Participation Int. Conferences National policy workshops Local policy workshops Sub Total

International study tours Community to community exchange programme Town to town exchange programme Sub Total

UN-Habitat HQ Missions Sub Total

Town level GoB counterpart staff training Training of elected representatives Sub Total

Support preparation of town poverty reduction strategies Support to preparation of town economic development strategies Sub Total

Description

90,000 65,000 15,000 8,446 178,446 557,786

40,000 60,000

20,000

10,000 15,000 25,000

20,000 24,000 20,000 20,000 84,000

23,000 119,340

70,000 26,340

10,000 10,000

25,000 35,000

67,084 4,500 4,974 76,558 243,619

30,285 132,957

69,479 33,193

20,763 20,763

3,343 13,341

9,998

46,000 10,000

Expenditure 09

23,000

Budget 09

78 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Effective project management systems established and operational.

UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP LGED LGED UNDP LGED LGED LGED LGED

5.3 Engage Managerial Staff

5.4 Provide Logistical Support

UNDP UNDP UNDP(UNHAB) UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP

UNDP

Responsible Party

5.2 engage Support Staff

5.1 Provide Technical Assistance

Output 5:

Activities

(Detailed results to be produced for achievement of each output not to be inc. In ATLAS)

Outputs

(Activities in ATLAS)

Outcome

( Project ID in ATLAS )

DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID

DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID

DFID DFID DFID DFID

DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID

DFID

Source of Fund

71600 71600 72100 72100 74500 72500 72800 72800 72200

71400 71100 71400 71400 71400 71400 71400

71400 71400 71400 71400

71200 71200 71200 71400 71400 71400 71400 71400 71400 71300 71300 71300 71300

71100

A/C Code & Description

Travel Travel Contr-Cmpy Contr-Cmpy MiscExp Supplies InfoTechEq InfoTechEq Equip&Furn

CntractSrv ALDEmpCst CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv

CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv

Intl Cnslt Intl Cnslt Intl Cnslt CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv CntractSrv Lcl Cnslts Lcl Cnslts Lcl Cnslts Lcl Cnslts

ALDEmplCst

Project staff travel Local Travel support Report and document printing Video production Staff Insurance Office Stationary and Supplies Computer Software Computers and Accessories Other Office Equipment

National Project Coordinator International Operations Manager Procure and H R Expert Finance Expert/Accountant Admin Expert Town Managers Finance/Accountants Experts Sub Total

Messengers Secretaries/Office Assistants Secretaries Drivers Sub Total

M&E Consultant Unspecified short-term consultants Unspecified short-term consultants Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator M & E Expert Training Coordinator Communications and Doc. Expert Gender Expert IT/Web site Expert Unspecified consultants Legal services Gender impact assessment Other sub contracts Sub Total

International Project Manager

Description

55,000 50,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 15,000 150,000

38,341 120,000 16,891 16,891 5,366 337,822 87,994 623,304

98,783 19,793 91,946 35,629 246,151

125,000 50,000 90,000 8,302 16,097 8,446 8,446 4,471 5,366 60,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 621,128

180,000

Budget 09

41,571 28,005 12,695 35,232 178 57,438 77,122

384,810

38,340 94,800 9,395 8,942 2,682 230,651

86,352 19,792 76,465 32,042 214,651

8,000 76,720 83,561 7,131 13,398 4,545 2,302 8,617 374,127

169,856

Expenditure 09

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 79

Outputs

(Activities in ATLAS)

Outcome

( Project ID in ATLAS )

Activities

5.6 Facilitate Capacity Building

5.5 Facilitate Monitoring

(Detailed results to be produced for achievement of each output not to be inc. In ATLAS)

LGED LGED

DFID DFID

DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID

DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID DFID

LGED UNDP UNDP LGED LGED LGED UNDP UNDP LGED UNDP(UNHAB) UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP

Source of Fund

Responsible Party

63400 63400

71600 71600 71400 72100 72100 72100

72200 72200 72200 73400 73400 74200 74500 74500 74500

A/C Code & Description

Lrning Cst Lrning Cst

Travel Travel CntractSrv Contr-Cmpy Contr-Cmpy Contr-Cmpy

Equip&Furn Equip&Furn Equip&Furn Rntl&Maint Rntl&Maint MiscExp MiscExp MiscExp MiscExp

Community facilitators programme Project staff training Sub Total OUTPUT 5 TOTAL Total (Output 1-5) GMS Grand Total of Budget 2009

UN-Habitat Mission costs Evaluation missions RBM Expert Technical Audit Financial Audit Baseline and follow-up surveys Sub Total

Office Furniture Project Vehicles Motorcycles and 3 wheelers O & M Vehicles and Motorcycles O & M Office Equipment Printing Reporting Costs International Communications Sundries Sub Total

Description

70,000 40,000 110,000 2,672,554 11,487,526 741,127 12,228,653

15,000 0 4,471 15,000 15,000 250,000 299,471

40,000 105,000 60,000 70,000 20,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 70,000 772,500

Budget 09

76,938 16,705 93,643 1,739,351 10,348,156 648,796 10,996,952

80,980 80,980

97,142 591,140

62,813 28,552 76,255 24,027 50,110

Expenditure 09

80 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

0 2 0 4 2 4 2 0 1 0

Total 5/29/09 6/8/09 6/14/09 6/18/09 7/16/09 7/24/09 7/24/09 7/22/09 7/27/09 7/27/09

8/3/09

8/4/09

8/5/09

8/11/09 8/24/09 8/25/09 9/3/09 9/8/09 9/10/09 9/24/09 10/5/09 10/6/09

10/9/09

10/13/09 10/12/09 10/20/09

10/20/09

10/23/09

10/21/09 10/22/09 10/25/09 10/24/09 10/29/09 10/26/09

10/27/09

10/28/09

5/29/09 6/6/09 6/14/09 6/14/09 7/14/09 7/20/09 7/22/09 7/22/09 7/26/09 7/27/09

7/31/09

8/2/09

8/5/09

8/10/09 8/24/09 8/24/09 9/2/09 9/6/09 9/10/09 9/23/09 10/5/09 10/6/09

10/7/09

10/10/09 10/12/09 10/18/09

10/20/09

10/21/09

10/21/09 10/22/09 10/24/09 10/24/09 10/25/09 10/26/09

10/27/09

10/28/09

0 0 1 0 4 0

3 0 2

1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0

Day

From

Date

NPC

IPM

NPD

1 1

16 13 20 3 3 6 9 1 7 9

OM DPD-1 DPD-2 Kishore Upul Jaya Binod

Staff

Lalith Lankatilleke 3

Kamrul Mokther sarwar Niker Palash Nazrul Washim CTG RAJ KLN BRL KST

Kamal

Koushik

Abul Hossain

Town

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

Travel Purpose

Attend Project Briefing Workshop Visit Project Town with WaterAid Bangladesh Observe Non Sum Survey Briefing Workshop TOT on mapping non slum poor Visit project town Visit project town Visit project town with ILO Visit project town with ILO Provide trg. On Settlement Mapping and Score Card Survey Settlement Mapping and Score Card Survey Attend Project Briefing Workshop Settlement Mapping and Score Card Survey Assessing Current Status of Extreme Poverty Strategy Consultations for extreme poverty reduction strategy Visit Project Town with Thailand team Provide training on Settlement Mapping Project Briefing Workshop Training on Settlement Mapping Training on Settlement Mapping Training on Settlement Mapping Assess Current Status of Extreme Poverty Strategy Assess Current Status of Extreme Poverty Strategy

Orient survey team on mapping non slum poor

Visit project town with ILO Observe Land Tenure Survey Visit Project Town Visit Project Town Observe Land Tenure Survey Monitor Urban Agricultural (UA) activities 1 Attend Project Briefing Workshop Attend Stakeholder Meeting Attend Stakeholder Meeting Visit project town with ILO Meeting with Mayor & attend Settlement Mapping Training Training of Settlement Mapping

11 4 15 2 2 1 0 7 9 8 6 2 4 3 1 12 7 3 5 2 6 3 6 4 3 6 3 2 3 3 2 2 1

GPG

Annex 26: Record of the HQ staff visits to the field

BGR SRG MMS HBG NRG DHK TNG CML JSR RNP DNP NRG SHT GZP SVR TGL NOG

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 81

1/27/10

1/28/10

1/31/10 2/11/10 2/11/10 2/15/10

2/15/10

2/19/10

1/24/10

1/31/10 2/7/10 2/7/10 2/15/10

2/15/10

1/19/10

1/18/10

1/22/10

1/17/10

1/25/10

1/17/10

1/14/10

1/19/10

1/14/10

1/20/10

1/11/10 1/13/10

1/18/10

1/6/10

11/24/09

1/4/10

11/18/09

11/16/09

11/23/09 11/25/09 12/3/09 12/15/09 12/23/09 12/29/09

11/12/09

11/18/09

11/11/09

11/9/09

11/22/09 11/24/09 12/2/09 12/12/09 12/23/09 12/29/09

11/11/09

11/8/09

11/18/09

11/5/09

Total

11/3/09

From

Date

0 4 4 0

0 0

1 1 1 3 0 0

Day

NPC

IPM

NPD

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

16 13 20 3 3 6 9 1 7 9

OM DPD-1 DPD-2 Kishore Upul Jaya Binod

Staff

Lalith Lankatilleke 1

Town

GPG

Kamrul Mokther sarwar Niker Palash Nazrul Washim CTG RAJ KLN BRL KST

Kamal

Koushik

Abul Hossain 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

11 4 15 2 2 1 0 7 9 8 6 2 4 3 1 12 7 3 5 2 6 3 6 4 3 6 3 2 3 3 2 2 1

BGR SRG MMS HBG NRG DHK TNG CML JSR RNP DNP NRG SHT GZP SVR TGL NOG SIF knowledge sharing with town team Attend Community Organiser's training Attend Community Organiser's training Visited Korail Community See SIF activities and Knowledge sharing with town team Attend Community Organizer's training & Field Visit

Observe settlement mapping and CAP field testing

Attend Project Briefing Workshop Meeting with UPPR-UNICEF team and visit project town Facilate UA activities and SEF contract preperation Facilate UA activities and SEF contract preperation Observe basline survey activities Field visit and investigation Field visit and investigation Attend training for community organiser Visit Project Town Facilitate workshop on Urban Agreculture Visit Project Town and attend British Minister's Programme Facilitate workshop on Urban Agreculture See the SIF activities Visit with Senior Human Settlement Officer-UN Habitat Attend urban poverty reduction strategy conversation Visit with Senior Human Settlement Officer-UN Habitat Workshop on land tenure and municipal governance Workshop on land tenure and municipal governance To visit ADPC working sites & UPPRP SIF activities Technical assistance to UAEs/TMs

Attend Stakeholder Meeting and Visit evected area

Workshop on impacting project outcomes through institution development Partnership with Veterinary University and Monitoring UA activities

Travel Purpose

Annex 27: Exchange Visits

TOTAL BRL

Town-to-town

CDC-to-CDC

Total

24 1

110 5

134 6

BGR

CNP

CTG

CML

6 7

DHK DNP

2 2

7 2

9 4

GZP

HBG

KLN

11 12

KST NRG

1 2

3 3

4 5

NOG

RAJ

RNP

SRG

17 18

SHT GPG

1 0

0 0

1 0

JSR

MMS

21 22

SVR TGL

0 0

TNG

82 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Annex 28: Mobilisation in 2009 and Future Mobilisation Plan % of target population mobilised 2009

2010

2011

2012

Population Mobilised '000 TOT

Completed 2009 In Old

In New

CDCs

CDCS

Target

2010

2011

2012

TOTAL

Total

100

786

1,095

746

382

3,103

CTG

100

160

152

550

100

200

175

500

128

139

123

116

109

DHK

KLN

SHT

RAJ

TNG

100

MMS

100

RNP

100

BRL

100 35

100 100

100

3 5 8

289 54

155 130

105

NRG

100

JSR

100

CML

100

DNP

100

NBG

100

BGR

TGL

100

SVR

100

GZP

100

NOG

100

GPG

100

KST

100

SRG

100

HBG

PAB

100

5 23

SDP

100

FRP

100

CNP

100

FEN

100

SAT

100

JND

100

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 83

Annex 29: List of Procurement 2009 Sl No.

Purchased Item

ICT & Electronics

1.1

Digital Sender: HP 9350C

1.2 1.3

UOM

Qty

Date

No.

4-Jan-09

Printer (HP LaserJet P1005) Kaspersky Internet Security

No. Qty

19 5

5-Feb-09 17-Feb-09

1.4

(Photocopier) Canon Image Class MF4350d

No.

16-Mar-09

1.5

Printer (HP LaserJet P1005)

No.

18-Mar-09

1.6 1.7

Printer (HP LaserJet P1005) UPS (SINEWAVE)

No. No.

1 9

27-Apr-09 9-Jun-09

1.8

Desktop (HP)

No.

1-Sep-09

1.9

Edge Modem

No.

6-Sep-09

1.10

Flatbed Scanner (Canon)

No.

14-Sep-09

1.11

UPS (Apollo Brand)

No.

4-Oct-09

1.12

Laptop (Dell E5400)

No.

5-Oct-09

1.13

Photocopier (Samsung Brand Digital Photocopier)

No.

14-Oct-09

1.14

Printer (HP LaserJet P2055d)

No.

20-Oct-09

Office Supplies & Maintenance

2.1

Driver's uniform

Set

2-Dec-09

2.2 2.3

Translation equipment (TOA Brand) Car bumper

Pcs No.

10 6

21-Dec-09 30-Dec-09

2.4

Panasonic PABX for HQ office

Set

13-May-09

2.5 3

Panasonic telephone device Furniture

Pcs

13-May-09

3.1

Executive table with three lockable drawers

No.

1-Apr-09

3.2

Table with 3 lockable drawers

No.

8-Apr-09

3.3 3.4

Executive chair Table with 2 lockable drawer

No. No.

19 79

8-Apr-09 8-Apr-09

3.5

Table with 1 lockable drawer

No.

8-Apr-09

3.6 3.7

Armed fixed chair Computer table

No. No.

156 37

8-Apr-09 8-Apr-09

3.8

File cabinet

No.

8-Apr-09

3.9

Steel almirah

No.

8-Apr-09

3.10

Map cabinet

No.

15-Nov-09

3.11

Executive table (TEOP003LB)

No.

3-Sep-09

3.12

Executive table (TEOP001LB)

No.

3-Sep-09

3.13 3.14

Executive table (TRDP001LB) Computer table (TCCP002LB)

No. No.

30 18

3-Sep-09 3-Sep-09

3.15

Hydraulic chair (CSEP007FFAA014)

No.

3-Sep-09

3.16

Fixed chair (CFVP006FFAA014)

No.

108

3-Sep-09

3.17

Multipurpose shelf (medium size)

No.

3-Sep-09

3.18 3.19

Multipurpose shelf (small size) Steel Almirah

No No.

6 12

3-Sep-09 3-Sep-09

3.20

Hydraulic chair (CSEP14FFAA014)

No.

3-Sep-09

4 4.1

AIR Condition Air conditioner (General Brand Split Wall Type)

No.

28-Apr-09

Vehicles

5.1

Motor Cycle

No.

14-Dec-08

5.2

Jeep

No.

4-Sep-09

84 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 85

CHT

Unit Cost ('000) C. Corporation

Unit Cost ('000) Pourashava

Unit

No.

Improved physical access and environment (footpath, drain, drain cover, streetlight post, pond excavation) 34% of total SIF budget

Improved water supply and hygiene (tube well, tubewell platform, water reservoir, bathroom) 17% of the total SIF budget

Sheltered space (community centre, market structure) 5% of the total SIF budget

Total Settlement Improvement Fund

Batch

1 day Training on Environmental Management & health/hygiene

35,293

470

147

34,824

1,741

5,920

11,840

15,322

DHK 59,752

624

297

59,128

2,956

10,052

20,104

26,016

KLN

RAJ

SHT

1,243

4,226

8,452

1,170

3,980

7,959

176

333

101

224

15,204 24,858 23,410

760

2,585

5,169

6,690 10,937 10,300

TNG

41,328 15,380 25,191 23,634

228

41,100

2,055

6,987

13,974

18,084

Batch

2 days Mentor training

Total Activity 2

Total SEF Training and Capacity Development

Batch

No.

1 day sensitisation workshop for potential community members

2 days skill training on different agro based activities (vegetable, livestock, poultry etc.) 1 day orientation/training for extreme poor household on enterprise development

No.

Batch

1 day training on SEF/apprenticeship fund management for CDC office bearer

Business/Job Market survey/Workshops

Batch

1 day Training on SEF fund management for cluster leader

SEF Trainings and Capacity Development

Total Socio-Economic Development Fund

25,305

50,976

162

149

508

13,212

50,814

6,559

Social Development (26% of total SEF budget)

9,655

252

4,793

Education support (19% of total SEF budget)

17,277

25,225

4,793

Block grant (19% of total SEF budget)

Urban Food Production (1% of total SEF budget)

8,577

Apprenticeship (34% of total SEF budget)

214

5,554

4,059

7,263

201

5,231

3,822

6,840

137

3,559

2,601

4,654

174

4,530

3,310

5,923

227

490

160

250

13,066 21,363 20,118 13,689 17,422

131

3,397

2,483

4,443

35,416 13,294 21,853 20,171 13,758 17,483

35,321

353

9,183

6,711

12,009

199

20,272

1,014

3,446

6,893

8,920

RNP

8,114 20,472

150

7,964

398

1,354

2,708

3,504

MMS

Atlas Activity # 2: Urban poor and extremely poor people acquire the resources, knowledge and skills to increase their incomes and assets

Total Activity 1

Total SIF Training and Capacity Development

No.

Batch

1 day skill Training on construction on physical infrastructure

Workshop on low cost housing and settlement

Batch

1 day Training on SIF contract management for CDC leaders

SIF Training and Capacity Development

No.

Improved sanitation (twin pit latrine, community latrine) 44% of the total SIF budget

SETTLEMENT IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS

Atlas Activity # 1: Poor urban communities* have healthy and secure living environments

Items

BRL

NRG

724

2,462

4,923

6,371

JSR

712

2,421

4,841

6,265

953

3,241

6,482

8,389

143

103

167

13,756 14,480 14,239 19,066

688

2,339

4,677

6,053

DNP

58,092

625

200

360

57,467

575

14,941

10,919

19,539

122

3,182

2,325

4,161

180

120

12,444 12,237

124

3,236

2,364

4,231

9,894 12,475 12,417

243

9,651

2,509

1,834

3,281

9,734

193

9,541

2,481

1,813

3,244

45,202 13,846 14,623 14,342 19,232

385

118

44,817

2,241

7,619

15,238

19,719

CML

Annex 30: Town Annual Workplan 2010 BGR

CNP

1,167

3,968

7,935

119

7,904

7,881

2,049

1,497

2,680

7,990

7,978

2,074

1,516

2,713

9,285 23,458

114

9,171 23,339

459

1,559

3,118

4,035 10,269

TGL 6,657

6,637

1,726

1,261

2,257

7,826

103

7,723

386

1,313

2,626

3,398

GZP 6,449

6,430

1,672

1,222

2,186

7,584

103

7,482

374

1,272

2,544

3,292

SPR 6,034

6,015

1,564

1,143

2,045

7,098

6,999

350

1,190

2,380

3,079

NOG 6,552

330

200

6,222

1,618

1,182

2,116

7,361

121

7,240

362

1,231

2,462

3,186

HOB

KST

GPG

217

738

181

615

121

410

821

971

709

809

591

539

394

705

110

4,770 3,757 3,221 2,074

4,770 3,733 3,111 2,074

1,240

906

1,622 1,269 1,058

5,581 4,392 3,650 2,443

5,551 4,344 3,620 2,413

278

944

1,887 1,477 1,231

2,442 1,911 1,593 1,062

SRG

86 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

No.

Workshop/meeting for TLCC members

Formation of TSC/ TSC meeting

Formation of TPB/TPB meeting

Documentation and dissemination of best practices

LS LS LS LS LS LS

27 103 17 31 12 34 225

27 103 17 31 12 34

100

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

203

27 103 17 31 12 12

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

140

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

CDC

Batch

No.

1 day workshop on CAP for CDC leaders

Preparation of CAP at CDC level (2 days)

Review and update CAP at CDC level (1 Day)

Preparation of CDC cluster level AWPB (CDC leaders)

Preparation of Town level AWPB (cluster leaders)

Review of Town level AWPB (half yearly)

Cross community association meeting (socially excluded group)

Exchange visit within towns

Formation of PIC/PIC Meeting

*The number of units is calculated based on the towns Annual Mobilization Plan

Grand Total

Total Activity 5

CDC/Cluster registration from Social Service department

Arrange day observation events and/or campaign jointly (GO,NGO, UPPRP groups) (to be named by HQ) 0

Monthly Cluster CDC meeting (Need based)

141

no.

123

Meeting with slum owners (Need based)

Annual General Meeting for each CDC covering all PG members

Batch

2 days training of Cluster office bearer on Leadership & Management

Refresher training for CDC leader/cluster leader/Facilitator on savings and credit management

Batch

2 days Gender and Leadership Training for CDC leaders

No.

Mass meeting with Community People

Batch

No.

Experience sharing workshop at town level

2 days training of CDC office bearer on group management

no.

3 days Exchange visit (town to town) by Councilor and Potential community leaders

Batch

Head Count Survey/Family Survey)

2 days Training on Savings and Credit Management for CDC leaders (primary group members)

no.

CDC/map

1 day orientation/Training for surveyor on head count/family survey

Preparation of social/poverty map

64,618

3,695

370

113

150

133

740

132

1,512

141

Map

Settlement & land mapping

45 0

No.

Review secondary source data

Town project briefing (new town)/stakeholder workshop (old towns)

118,469

7,427

750

174

488

225

1,500

267

534

2,520

141

150

80,323

3,286

250

156

250

100

500

178

840

141

31,261

2,223

200

158

400

175

821

123

50,310

2,952

255

258

260

510

182

857

141

47,099

2,979

245

243

120

240

490

174

823

141

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

Atlas Activity # 5: Urban poor communities* mobilized to form representative and inclusive subgroups and prepare community action plans

Total Activity 4

Office stationary & supplies O & M vehicle/motor cycles O & M office Equipment Internet connectivity charges Land phone cost Sundries

Atlas Activity # 4: Technical Assistance and Management Cost (Project Support Costs)

Total Activity 3

No.

Appreciative inquiry through exchange visit (Town to Town)

Batch

No.

Formation/Activation of TLCC

GoB & LGI staff Training/workshop for policy & advocacy

No.

Workshop on development of Poverty Reduction Strategy

24,514

2,297

230

165

460

149

699

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

120

40,698

2,378

220

210

120

440

143

669

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

140

Atlas Activity # 3: Partnerships and city/urban development models/strategies developed to influence pro-poor local and national level policies and practices

107,382

3,774

325

650

100

258

600

105

211

988

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

25,963

1,899

165

143

120

250

117

554

141

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

100

29,104

1,691

155

150

310

100

471

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

28,250

1,177

100

110

200

304

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

30,482

1,202

240

213

246

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

18,744

1,241

115

230

350

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

32,827

1,034

120

227

182

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

120

15,943

1,146

100

200

304

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

15,617

1,269

100

200

304

246

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

14,536

1,090

190

289

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

15,324

1,096

100

200

304

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

10,894

234

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

9,292

828

150

228

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

7,458

272

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

5,030

208

123

225

27 103 17 31 12 34

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Town Manager Urban Agricultural Expert Socio Economic Expert Settlement Improvement Expert Finance/Accountant Settlement Improvement Assistant Socio Economic Assistant Community Organiser Secretary Driver Messenger Community Development Officer Accounts Assistant Computer Operator MLSS Total Vacant Positions Town Manager Urban Agricultural Expert Socio Economic Expert Settlement Improvement Expert Finance/Accountant Settlement Improvement Assistant Socio Economic Assistant Community Organiser Secretary Driver Messenger Community Development Officer Accounts Assistant Computer Operator

Total Filled Positions

Job Title

UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP GOB GOB GOB

UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP GOB GOB GOB GOB

Contract Type CTG

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

DHK

1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

KLN

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SHT

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

RAJ

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TNG

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MMS

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

RNP

1 0 1 0 1 1 1 8 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

BRL

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

NRG

UPPR HR Plan 23 Towns JSR

1 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

CML

0 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DNP

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

NBG

1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

BGR 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 7 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

TGL 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SVR

Annex 31: UPPR Project Town Staffing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Filled and Vacant Post GZP 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NOG 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

GPG 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

KST 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SRG 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

HBG

19 9 23 4 18 23 23 153 21 2 23 19 15 17 23 31 4 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 8 6

392

Total

Annex 32: UPPR Staffing status as end of 2009 Head Office Staff Contract S.No. Job Title Type 1 National Project Director GOB 2 Deputy Project Director GOB 3 Senior Assistant Engineer GOB 4 Community Development Officer GOB 5 Sociologist GOB 6 Accounts Officer GOB 7 Computer Operator GOB 8 Office Assistant GOB 9 Photocopy Operator GOB 10 Driver GOB 11 MLSS GOB 12 International Programme Manager UNDP 13 International Operations Manager UNDP 14 International Extreme Poverty Adviser UNDP 15 International M & E Adviser (Consultant) UNDP 16 International Security of Tenure, Housing and Planning Adviser UNHABITAT 17 International Financial Services Adviser (Consultant) UNDP 18 International Local Economic Development Adviser UNDP 19 International Settlement Improvement Adviser UNHABITAT 20 National Project Coordinator UNDP 21 M & E Coordinator UNDP 22 Training Coordinator UNDP 23 Urban Agricultural Coordinator UNDP 24 Extreme Poverty Coordinator UNDP 25 Finance Expert UNDP 26 Admin Expert UNDP 27 ICT/Website Expert UNDP 28 M & E Expert UNDP 29 Procurement Expert UNDP 30 HR Expert UNDP 31 Urban Planning Expert UNDP 32 MIS Expert UNDP 33 Communications and Documentation Expert UNDP 34 Gender Expert UNDP 35 Community Health Expert UNDP 36 Financial Services Expert UNDP 37 Extreme Poverty Expert UNDP 38 Employment and Enterprise Development Expert UNDP 39 Secretary/Office Assistant UNDP 40 Secretary UNDP 41 Driver UNDP 42 Messenger UNDP Total

88 UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009

Number of Positions 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 6 3 67

Filled positions 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 3 60

Vacant positions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 7

Filled in 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 4 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 3 45

Job Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Community Development Officer Accounts Assistant Computer Operator MLSS Town Manager Urban Agricultural Expert Socio Economic Expert Settlement Improvement Expert Finance/Accountant Expert Settlement Improvement Assistant Socio Economic Assistant Community Organiser Secretary Driver Messenger

Field Office Staff Contract Type GOB GOB GOB GOB UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP UNDP Total

Number of Filled Vacant Filled in Positions positions positions 2009 6 23 19 4 7 23 15 8 7 23 17 6 23 23 23 0 23 19 4 5 10 9 1 0 23 23 0 5 4 4 0 2 23 18 5 18 23 23 0 2 23 23 0 11 154 153 1 153 23 21 2 21 2 2 0 2 23 23 0 23 423 392 31 285

UPPR Annual Progress Report 2009 89