Rural Sourcing Workshop

Meeting Note
Thursday 12th July 2012

Participants

Anowarul Haq – Impact Statement Director
Selim Reza Hasan – Director of Prog Design Unit (first hour)
Mishael Aziz Ahmad – Technical Coordinator
Bishwajit Kumar Paul – Prog Manager
Masud Alam Khan – FSUP team leader
Facilitator: Kate Ives

Agenda

Time | Session | Facilitation | 09.30-09.40 | 1. Introduction and objectives | Kate | 09.40-10.00 | 2. Summary of findings | ppt slides (Kate) | 10.00-11.30 | 3. Discussion points and next steps | Group |

Meeting notes

Session 1 | Introduction | Kate | Objectives of the session are to reflect on lessons learned from rural sourcing programming after these first 4 years. Second, we want to discuss ways to deepen quality and sustainability in the future. | Session 2 | Summary of findings |

Slide 4: Drivers * A point of clarification was added: access to resources also means control of resources. * The group discussed the meaning of “access to markets”, and defined restricting factors as: physical mobility (infrastructure and geographic restrictions such as those facing the chor areas), social mobility (gender-based constraints on leaving the home), fear of violence, women’s workload, and health. * There was a suggestion to refer more directly to the rural impact statement for appropriate language, and to refer to the agency/structure/relationships model.

Slide 5 * It was suggested that ongoing monitoring be added to the process outlined above. * There was discussion around the importance of conducting an early needs assessment of the women, and that this should be incorporated into future programming. * The selection of women was deemed crucial to the success of the intervention, to meet the women’s needs, match their skill-sets and aspirations, which should result in lower drop-out rates. * The need for workplace orientation was also raised as important at the beginning of the intervention to further improve results. * Finally, research into product selection was highlighted as important. In some cases this has happened in RUG, but it depends whether the product is new or already exists in the local market. Kik brings its own market analysis to CARE, and the group discussed the need to supplement the company’s research with CARE’s own, 1) to verify their information and 2) to identify additional buyers and intermediaries that CARE could connect with in order to reduce dependency on sole buyers and vulnerability to market shocks.

Session 3 | Discussion points and next steps |

1. Does income generation lead to empowerment, and if so how, and under what circumstances?

* This question caused considerable debate! Mehrul recommended we refer to CARE US’s EDU research on this subject, and reflect on the extent to which empowerment is integrated into CARE’s economic development frameworks. * Everyone agreed with the need to ensure that social and political factors, in addition to economic factors, are embedded into programme design. * The group debated some CARE frameworks that may add additional value to rural sourcing. Ideas included participatory poverty analysis (through which the beneficiaries are made aware of their options and presented with rural sourcing in a wider context), and gender sensitivity (to ensure, for example, that recruitment of managers and oversight of workers in conducted with a gender-sensitive lens). * It was noted that empowerment in not a linear process, and that the women do not exist in a vacuum. Instead, the enabling environment should be considered simultaneously. * A conversation ensued about the extent to which CARE can (or should) be swayed by the demands of business partners. As an example: in the past, CARE has refused to work with Carrefour on the grounds that the proposition was outside of CARE’s geographic areas of focus. However, some participants noted the value of going to new areas, or areas within existing focus but not currently with projects underway. Overall, everyone agreed the importance of being flexible and always looking to achieve scale.

2. Is CARE creating dignified income generating opportunities?

* Mehrul recommended referring to the 2007 LRSP that defined dignified employment in full. The group defined it as: non-discriminative or dependent employment; work that is socially acceptable; work that is guaranteed/has some future security. * The group felt that rural sourcing met these criteria.

3. Does this work reach the poorest, and if not, should that be challenged?

* Everyone agreed on the need to investigate this further. There are often limitations to accessing the poorest of the poor, such as 1) infrastructure and geographical constraints, 2) in some cases skills levels, or 3) being able-bodied. * The current approach creates labourers and not owners of enterprises. This raised the question of whether CARE had achieved a fair a balance between meeting the needs of private sector partners with CARE’s own objectives of reaching the poorest and creating sustainable business models on which the poor are empowered to control their own resources and access markets.

4. What is the link between establishing women’s producer groups with social solidarity and social capital?

* There is anecdotal evidence that the rural sourcing approach does lead to an increased sense of solidarity for the women. The example of pooled savings to help out colleagues was given. * However this is an important point that needs to be considered more in the future. The development community has often decreased solidarity (unintentionally) but is trying to redress this through community-led development. It is important to include the non-poor in development interventions as well.

5. Is the model redressing imbalances in market access?

* The group felt strongly that the model is redressing market imbalances, by creating linkages to international markets that would not otherwise have existed. CARE is contributing to the national debate about the importance of decentralisation and proving that trade with remote areas in the north-east is possible. * There is also anecdotal evidence suggesting that the approach is contributing to a reduction in migration.

6. Is export-led growth more beneficial (against financial, empowerment and sustainability indicators) to women in rural areas than other approaches?

* The group agreed that export-led growth brings higher potential income and much faster pathway out of poverty than local or regional markets, however, it also carries more risks. There is strong need to ensure these risks are mitigated by embedding risk analysis and mitigation strategies into programming from the start. * It was suggested that CARE considers policy advocacy in parallel with programming to support the growth of these industries, and for long-term economic development planning.

7. Is it CARE’s place to negotiate for better wages on behalf of the workers?

* Wages were discussed from the early phases of the programme, and adapted throughout according to market conditions and women’s needs. It was agreed that a stipulation on wages (and other criteria) could be presented in to potential corporate partners as CARE’s minimum requirements to partner. * This led to a discussion about whether the women will be able to negotiate for themselves after CARE withdraws (see next question).

8. Is CARE’s exit strategy sufficient to create sustainable enterprises in which women can demand their rights and those rights are respected?

* The group felt that it was important for CARE to develop an idea of what the RUG units would look like in the future without CARE’s involvement (this might be anything from 3 to 15 years from now), in order to map out the factors that need to be in place before then. The factors include: the ability of the women to negotiate better conditions and wages for themselves; the ability for the women to access alternative markets in the event that the sole buyer disappears (this would imply design or marketing skills, and connections with other local intermediaries).

Next steps

In addition to the list above, the group added: * Consideration of whether profit could be reinvested into the producer groups, like a Fair Trade model. * Consideration of whether this approach creates a socially responsible business in the long-term * The need for greater evidence about impact * The need to define which policies need to change in order to create an enabling environment in which rural production units can prosper.