Too little, too late from RSPs.
Breaking the much longer silence over the news of financial mismanagement and favouritism in Sarhad Rural Support Corporation (SRSC), Rural Support Programmes (RSPs) came to the rescue with the usual stress on the statistics and yet another attempt to hide SRSC behind AKRSP in an article published in the Frontier Post November 19, 2000. The author's use of "our" in the text is an indicator of his belonging to RSPs circle. However, he fails to address the issues of concern to general public -- particularly in NWFP.
There is no attempt to clarify SRSC's position vis-a-vis news report published in Daily Maidan on October 05, whereby according to the PE&D sources two Rural Support Programmes (SRSC and KRSP) embezzled a sum of Rs 5.505 million in the grants given under Social Action Programme during the period from 1994-98. Similarly, there is no explanation to the Daily Nawa-e-waqt Staff report of October 27, which cited a government inquiry team's finding that SRSC has misappropriation Rs. 688 million under Mansehra Village Support Programme.
The article, basically written in defence of SRSC, starts with criticism of the "inefficient-administrative systems" of the government and prevailing social, political and economic inequalities - the root causes of poverty. Besides failing to become a parallel government by themselves, RSPs have particularly been criticised for their inability to address these causes. They are best in forming community-based organisations to be used as social collateral in lending micro-credit and ensuring better implementation of infrastructure projects. RSPs were not expected to argue that their approach can or cannot provide a solution to the intractable issues which have been remained on the textbooks for ages. Even if they are, the public is interested in concrete answers on the so-called "allegations" of favouritism and financial mismanagement in SRSC.
Many critics are of the view that Wilheim Raeffeisen and Dr. Akhtar Hamid Khan are instantly used by the RSPs as fig leaves to cover their misdeeds, whereas the fact remains that 99.99% of the world doesn't know about Raeffeisen or his model (internet is a proof) and RSPs are going totally against the practices and teachings of Akhtar Hamid Khan in their ever expansion drive to reach every corner of the country. There is no doubt hat AKRSP has been successful in implementing community development programme, but this cannot justify whatever is pouring out of SRSC. The critics equate NRSP with a virtual micro-lending institution and SRSC due to its management problems is reported by internal sources to have turned into mini-kingdom at the mercy of a few in the management.
Instead of giving the statistics that RSPs have organised 0.6 million households, of which "more than 83% come from the poor and very poor strata of the society," the report should have explained the appointment and termination of nine staff members hired for the Lachi project - including son of one of the BoD members and son-in-law of the Lachi project. If it were not due to the articles published in the Frontier Post, the appointments would never have been cancelled. Or how the Province will refund the loans misappropriated by SRSC? Or what made the government officials on SRSC's BoD to resign?
The RSPs might be wrong on the above mentioned coverage of the poor as well. Since almost 75% of NRSP activities are limited to delivery and recovery of micro-credit, its efficiency in reaching the poor can be judged from one of its regional programme manager's statement that "less than 10% of the micro-credit goes to the poor and even less than that to the poorest of the poor." So the claim that RSPs are working with 83% of the poor and poorest of the poor become meaningless to many particularly if it is mentioned in a report intended to silence the critics or address the growing concerns of the public.
Similarly, the sum of the total community savings, according to the author "comes to no less than Rs. 700 million." This becomes a dubious figure when looked at in the context of the statement of one of the SRSC social organisers that the Regional Programme Officer has specifically told them not to verify the communities' saving figure from the bank.
The RSPs report further claims of the "remarkably high recovery rates of micro-credit programmes of RSPs are another manifestations of their good community relations." According to reports from Charsadda, the community members who are unable to return the micro-credit are repeatedly spending some days in lock up because the local administration cannot lock them up for longer periods without formally charging them. Such harassment of the community members could be known as "good community relations" in RSPs terminology.
RSPs claim to be providing micro-credit at the lowest rate of 2-15 paisa in comparison to other NGOs. According to a report written for ILO, actually "the RSPs in their accounting systems tend to avoid separating costs specific to the credit programme. This alters the perception of their credit programme at the policy level, by seeking subsidised credit for on lending at market rates to the poor."
According to a source, who transmitted some information to the donors regarding SRSC issue, the donors, like Ann Keeling from the UNDP, have adapted the attitude of "come and prove the allegations to us" approach, forgetting that the people can only report a death in the neighbourhood, its then up to the police to investigate and find out if it were a murder or a suicide. And what can one say of the donors' seriousness who reported in the mid-term review of SRSC (Oct. 1996) that "RSPs pay amongst the lowest salaries when compared to both government and non-government services." With comparison to government, this statement is absurd. However, it might hold some water in comparison to other NGOs provided the total staff salary is divided by the total number of staff. But what to say of the fact that salary of the 10 members of the management equals to 35 or more mid-level managers.
Even if the logic presented by RSPs is accepted, the question arises, for how long they have to work at the cost of more than Rs. 60 million a year. Despite the much vaunted successes, none of the RSPs has withdrawn from any region in the past 19 years. The RSPs consider helping to form and strengthening the capacity of community organisations as their prime responsibility, but experience has shown that these entities are not sustainable and very few survive as soon as the incentives of credit and infrastructure schemes dry up. None of the RSPs can come up with a single rural community, where they have devolved power and withdrawn? Instead, there is a tendency to set up more and more offices and growing cadre of staff.
Irrespective of any justification regarding RSPs approach, the people of NWFP are looking forward to answers for the 14 questions raised by the staff members of SRSC and others, as mentioned in a letter to the editor in the Frontier Post on October 04, 2000. All these questions still remain valid and unanswered. project. If it were not due to the articles published in the Frontier Post, the appointments would never have been cancelled. Or how the Province will refund the loans misappropriated by SRSC? Or what made the government officials on SRSC's BoD to resign?
The RSPs might be wrong on the above mentioned coverage of the poor as well. Since almost 75% of NRSP activities are limited to delivery and recovery of micro-credit, its efficiency in reaching the poor can be judged from one of its regional programme manager's statement that "less than 10% of the micro-credit goes to the poor and even less than that to the poorest of the poor." So the claim that RSPs are working with 83% of the poor and poorest of the poor become meaningless to many particularly if it is mentioned in a report intended to silence the critics or address the growing concerns of the public.
Similarly, the sum of the total community savings, according to the author "comes to no less than Rs. 700 million." This becomes a dubious figure when looked at in the context of the statement of one of the SRSC social organisers that the Regional Programme Officer has specifically told them not to verify the communities' saving figure from the bank.
The RSPs report further claims of the "remarkably high recovery rates of micro-credit programmes of RSPs are another manifestations of their good community relations." According to reports from Charsadda, the community members who are unable to return the micro-credit are repeatedly spending some days in lock up because the local administration cannot lock them up for longer periods without formally charging them. Such harassment of the community members could be known as "good community relations" in RSPs terminology.
RSPs claim to be providing micro-credit at the lowest rate of 2-15 paisa in comparison to other NGOs. According to a report written for ILO, actually "the RSPs in their accounting systems tend to avoid separating costs specific to the credit programme. This alters the perception of their credit programme at the policy level, by seeking subsidised credit for on lending at market rates to the poor."
According to a source, who transmitted some information to the donors regarding SRSC issue, the donors, like Ann Keeling from the UNDP, have adapted the attitude of "come and prove the allegations to us" approach, forgetting that the people can only report a death in the neighbourhood, its then up to the police to investigate and find out if it were a murder or a suicide. And what can one say of the donors' seriousness who reported in the mid-term review of SRSC (Oct. 1996) that "RSPs pay amongst the lowest salaries when compared to both government and non-government services." With comparison to government, this statement is absurd. However, it might hold some water in comparison to other NGOs provided the total staff salary is divided by the total number of staff. But what to say of the fact that salary of the 10 members of the management equals to 35 or more mid-level managers.
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Manager
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Staff
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Staff 2
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.