Day One Recap
Home Contents Introduction Opening Remarks Objectives Introduction to NPMS CSOs/Govt Partnership Poverty Assesment Day One Recap Research Methodologies Monitoring Technique Cross-cutting isssues S E Database Role of CSOs in PRSP Lobbying & Advocacy Monitoring Strategy Lesson Learned Closing Remarks



7:0 Recap of Day One

7:1 Video on Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPAs)

At the end of day one, a documentary video on PPAs was shown. The video documentary was based on the Voices of the Poor PPA that was conducted by the World Bank in 1998. The participants were exposed to the importance and relevance of Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPAs) in monitoring debt and trends of poverty at the community level. The video, which was taken in Tanzania complemented the presentation on PPAs done on the first day of the workshop. Participants who had the opportunity to watch it said it was a good documentary, short and clear. The video managed to present a visual representation of the theoretical presentation that was made during the workshop. It showed how PPAs could practically be conducted in the field. It was merging the theoretical parts of the two previous presentations on PPA with practices on conducting PPAs in the field at the district and community levels where beneficiaries and other stakeholders were collectively involved in the PPA.

7:2 Feedback on the SWOT Analysis Exercise

The word SWOT is defined as follows:
    S: Strengths
    W: Weaknesses
    O: Opportunities
    T: Threats

As part of exercise of the day for Day 1, the participants were asked to make a brief SWOT analysis of their organisations in the area of engaging in monitoring poverty and PRSP especially at the district-level. Each participant was given manila cards to write the answers. The participants listed the following strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and treats:


bulletSkilled staff on monitoring
bulletHave communication facilities
bulletHave some strategies in place and monitoring tools.
bulletHave direct linkage with grassroots people and commitment to them
bulletThere is increased cooperation among NGOs
bulletTransparency and accountability to people
bulletOwnership of activities with target groups



bulletLack of own premises and working offices for majority of young NGOs
bulletLack of training in poverty and PRSP monitoring.
bulletHaving limited knowledge and awareness on the position of the Government and donors on the PRSP.
bulletMajority having limited skills on monitoring the PRSP.
bulletHaving unclear measurable indicators to use during PRSP monitoring work.
bulletPoor relationship and partnership between and among NGOs and between the government and NGOs.
bulletLimited geographical coverage of activities.


bulletIncreasing cooperation among NGOs: Currently there is a new culture among CSOs to cooperate on issues which are of great concern to people. This is an asset in forth coming engagement of CSOs in monitoring poverty and PRSP
bulletGood rapport with government at district and grassroots level. In some districts, CSOs have established good rapport and collaboration with local authorities as well as with grassroot communities. This is a good entry point in monitoring poverty and PRSP. Also government and communities have recognized the programmes and activities of some CSOs, so this an added advantage
bulletPresence of well established coalitions/networks in some places, which will be a unifying force. These existing networks and coalitions can be used for monitoring poverty and PRSP. Also these coalitions and networks can be used as an entry point instead of coming up with something new altogether which might cause unnecessary expenses and at the same time cause suspicion from government.
bulletWithin the context of working in on coalition, it will be easy to get data on poverty.
bulletMany CSOs are community based and are trusted and have strong linkage with communities. Also these CSOs are committed and pro- poor. This will also help in getting views from the grassroot easily.
bulletSome CSOs are currently working on programmes addressing poverty, which involve government at district level.
bulletPresence of gender oriented CSOs with capacity in lobbying and advocacy.
bulletIn some districts, government/local council authorities officials are very supportive to many initiatives by CSOs and have learned and developed culture of working/cooperating with CSOs. Some CSOs personnel are goverment officials so they can influence government.
bulletSome CSOs are members of a number of networks so it will be easy for them to advocate for poverty eradication strategies through those networks/coalitions
bulletStrong and wide range of partners, NGOs, private sector addressing the same issue.
bulletSome organisations are better position to establish /form coalition at district level.



bulletNo clear government position on how much debt relief have been received. Government, World Bank, IMF as well as the Bank of Tanzania have been giving different data on how much Tanzania has received from debt relief. With this confusing information, it will be difficult even to know exactly what these CSOs are going to monitor.
bulletOver dependence on donors for funding.
bulletPoor partnership between NGOs and Government. Negative attitude of government towards CSOs. To a great extent government still sees CSOs as opponents. This goes hand in hand with little support proceeding from government to different initiatives that are being undertaken by CSOs.
bulletUnwillingness of government officials to provide information to CSOs which would help in monitoring poverty.
bulletInadequate knowledge by government officials at district level on poverty reduction strategies especially PRSP.
bulletIn some areas, any attempt to establish network/coalition will face stiff challenge because some NGOs will think that they would be swallowed.
bulletLack of money to run activities also is expected to be a stumbling block.
bulletThere is no conducive environment for CSOs to undertake their activities.
bulletLack of assurance of funds will hinder effective implementation of monitoring.
bulletIn some places, government departments have not recognised the contribution of CSOs in community development.
bulletGovernment can stop/sabotage this endeavour because it the Government) has coercive power.
bulletLack of direct approach/relationship with poverty reduction institutions i.e. Vice President Office, Ministry of Finance.
bulletSome CSO have limited influence to government. This means it will be difficult to some CSOs to influence government decisions.

Back Home Next