Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque and Dr. M Abul Kashem Mozumder :
Social net programme under expansion for poverty reduction has gained momentum. The concerned agencies should consider the following factors n: think of new and emerging challenges, these challenges include rapid urbanization, globalization, export orientation and structural changes (e.g. layoffs, increase in prices, etc.). The national policy should also emphasize programs for mitigating ex-ante risks, all in a financially sustainable way. A well-designed policy for social protection programs should address various gaps including safety nets for urban areas and link programs to human development; Bangladesh needs a quick social safety nets response system to disaster management. This is because the country is prone to natural calamities and responses at present are reactive to these catastrophes. There is no quick social safety net response mechanism with respect to these recurring natural calamities. Safety net programs should also address chronic poverty and help poor people escape poverty; Food transfer programs to be replaced by cash transfer programs which have cheaper cost of delivery. This is evidenced that the cost of transferring food is higher than transferring cash benefits and the beneficiaries mostly prefer cash to kind. While the Government of Bangladesh has been increasing spending in social safety nets over time, these initiatives need to target the poorest regions and individuals better.
Though targeting efficiency is not performing very poor at present, this could possibly improve if objective targeting criteria are mixed with community verification. Better targeting mechanism could also help increase both coverage and level of benefits for the poor. e) Implementation and administration of the programs also need improvement. This is especially important with respect to coordination among ministries, consolidation of various programs over time, improving delivery mechanisms by transferring directly to the beneficiaries, and strengthening local government capacity.
Given crushing poverty, it is quite l important that the safety net strategy should include programmes to generate employment for jobless youth and the poor. The programme of employment includes: (i) the Food-for-Work (FFW) Programme, (ii) the Rural Development (RD) Programme, and (iii) the 100-day Employment Generation Programme (EGP). The major objectives of Food for works programmed are to: (i) improve agricultural sector performance through the construction and maintenance of infrastructure for production and marketing; (ii) reduce physical damage and loss of human lives due to natural disasters through appropriate protective measures; and (iii) generate productive employment for the rural poor during lean seasons. The FFW projects, administered by the World Food Programme (WFP) and CARE, are implemented by several ministries, government departments and NGOs.
The allocation of resources to the FFW programme ranged from 4 per cent to 5 per cent of the total national development expenditure during the 1970s. It increased sharply to 11 per cent in 1988/89 in response to the major floods in 1988, and then declined to 6 per cent in 1989-91, the normal production years. Participation in the FFW is self-selecting, i.e., any one who is poor, willing and available to do mainly earthwork for food wages. The wage rate varies according to the type of project and gender of the workers. The average is daily 3.94. For the major FFW projects is about 4.6 kg of wheat. Until the early 1990s, wheat was used to pay the workers. In 1992-93, the FFW paid workers in rice to dispose of its surplus rice stock. The bulk of the FFW food grains are used between January and May, the lean agricultural season. Performance of the individual FFW projects varied. At the aggregate level, the FFW programme generated seasonal employment for large numbers of people. Each year it generates, on average, over 100 million workdays of employment in earthworks, directly benefiting around 4 million people.
The other benefits of the project include improved agricultural production; enhanced marketing opportunities, resulting from road construction and rehabilitation; improved transportation and communication; and reduced physical damages and loss of human lives, resulting from structures which hold back floods. Over the long run, these benefits represent development gains, with the potential to accelerate the pace of economic growth and contribute to food security, both at the household and national levels. Involvement of community leaders in the planning process varied from project to project, being generally more prevalent in the smaller projects. Also, the presence of a strong union council and a motivated union council chairman were key predictors of good performance of the FFW projects.
Three types of leakages have been observed: (i) over-reporting of work done; (ii) practice of leaving the earth uncarpeted, thereby making it difficult to measure the actual volume of earthwork and the amount of work completed; and (iii) under-payment to workers. Overall, leakage of resources is around one-third. Several technical, organisational, programming and institutional problems limit the potential benefits of the FFW programme. These include: (i) inadequate access to specialised planning, design and supervisory services; (ii) inadequate staffing; (iii) weak capacity within the government to ensure compliance with programme standards; (iv) inadequate monitoring; (v) weak accountability mechanism to ensure proper use of food resources; and (vii) delays in project approval process.
The Rural Development (RD) programme is a self-targeting public works programme aimed at supporting the income and consumption of the most vulnerable groups and to reducing poverty by providing paid work to poor people and building infrastructure which can increase access of the poor to employment opportunities. Also, being undertaken during slack seasons, it can help stabilise seasonal fluctuations in income generation and employment in rural areas. Between 1996 and 1998, the programme provided about 200,000 metric ton of wheat per year for projects to build public infrastructure and develop other Khuda: Social Safety Net Programmes in Bangladesh 95 natural resources to benefit the rural poor. Various project activities were undertaken in the water sector for rehabilitation of embankments and canals; the road sector for improvement of rural roads; the forestry sector for tree plantation and for creating assets for the poor; and the fisheries sector for development of water bodies to expand the fishery programmes.
A study was undertaken in 1998 of earth moving projects in the water and the road sectors. Two broad sources of leakages were identified: (i) underpayment of workers, and (ii) padding. Based on the progress reports of the projects, Carlo del Ninno estimated leakage to be 16 per cent; however, it was 26 per cent, based on the sardars’ reports. Other forms of leakages were: (i) the amount of grain delivered from the LSDs to the PICs was less than the sanctioned amount in several cases (up to 5 per cent); (ii) “rent” was paid at different stages of work; and (iii) a part of the benefits accrue to the non-intended beneficiaries. Total leakage reported in other studies ranged between 24 per cent and 29 per cent.
