Get documents about "Preliminary programme
Document Sample
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ABBREVATIONS _____________________________________________________ 3
2. REMINDER __________________________________________________________ 4
2.1. Workshop on ‘Good practices for economic integration of persons with disabilities:
Financing tools’ ____________________________________________________________ 4
2.2. Purpose of the workshop: _________________________________________________ 4
2.3. Methodology: ___________________________________________________________ 4
3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ______________________________________________ 5
4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _______________________________________________ 6
5. INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________ 8
6. PRESENTATION BY ORGANISATIONS __________________________________ 9
6.1. Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya (APDK) - Embu Branch __________ 9
6.2. LCI (Leonard Cheshire International) ______________________________________ 10
6.3. APDK – KISII _________________________________________________________ 11
6.4. APDK MOMBASA _____________________________________________________ 12
6.5. UPDK ________________________________________________________________ 12
6.6. K–REP Group _________________________________________________________ 13
6.7. Ethiopian Federation of Persons with Disabilities ____________________________ 13
6.8. CBM- Ethiopia (Christoffel Blindenmission) ________________________________ 14
6.9. NUDIPU-Uganda ______________________________________________________ 15
6.10. Handicap International _________________________________________________ 15
7. GROUP DISCUSSIONS _______________________________________________ 17
7.1. Group 1 (EFPD, HI, and LCI) ____________________________________________ 17
7.2. Group 2 ______________________________________________________________ 20
8. DISCUSSION ON CRITICAL ISSUES ___________________________________ 21
8.1. Group work ___________________________________________________________ 21
8.2. Group presentation _____________________________________________________ 21
9. CONCERNS AND FOCUS ON OTHER CRITICAL ISSUES THAT EMERGED
DURING VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS/ PRESENTATIONS IN THE WORKSHOP. _____ 23
9.1. Grants vs. Loans _______________________________________________________ 23
9.2. Repayment of loans _____________________________________________________ 23
9.3. Linkage to Mainstream MFIs and its complex nature _________________________ 24
9.4. Attitude _______________________________________________________________ 24
9.5. Group Dynamics _______________________________________________________ 24
9.6. Charity versus demand for repayments _____________________________________ 24
10. Conclusion __________________________________________________________ 24
11. ANNEXES __________________________________________________________ 25
2
1. ABBREVATIONS
APDK Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya
BDS Business Development Services
CBM Christofel Blindenmission – Ethiopia
CBOs Community Based Organizations
CBR Community Based Rehabilitation
DPOs Disabled People Organizations
EFPD Ethiopia Federation of Persons with Disabilities
HI Handicap International
IGAs Income Generating Activities
ILO International Labour Organization
K-Rep K-Rep Bank (A microfinance institution Kenya)
LCI Leonard Cheshire International – Tanzania
MFIs Micro Finance Institutions
NGOs Non Governmental Organizations
NUDIPU National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda
PWDs People with Disabilities
SHG Self Help Groups
UPDK Union of Persons with Disability in Kenya
3
2. REMINDER
2.1. Workshop on ‘Good practices for economic integration
of persons with disabilities: Financing tools’
Participants:
APDK (Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya),
3 participants from the Embu, Kisii and Mombassa - branches
CBM – Ethiopia (Christoffel Blindenmission), 1 participant
EFPD (Ethiopian Federation of Persons with Disabilities), 1 participant
Handicap International (HI) – Nairobi, 2 participants, HI Lyon, 1 participant
K-REP, micro finance institution from Kenya, 1 participant.
LCI – Tanzania (Leonard Cheshire International), 1 participant.
NUDIPU – Uganda, 1 participant.
UPDK (Union for Persons with Disabilities Kenya), 1 participant
Facilitator: Ton de Klerk, consultant for Handicap International.
2.2. Purpose of the workshop:
During the workshop some major issues regarding programmes for economic
integration of persons with disabilities will be discussed, that require clarification.
Expected outcomes: To develop concrete ideas on: „Guidelines for good practices
on economic integration of persons with disabilities: the financing tools’, that can
be incorporated in a later publication on the subject.
Through discussion of the experience that participants have:
1. With linking of income generation programmes for disabled persons with
mainstream micro finance programmes/institutions. Partnership requires a proper
understanding and definition of the roles and respective tasks of both partners.
What precise arrangements have been made to facilitate their co-operation? What
lessons have been learnt? How is the partnership assessed? Is there a need for
adaptations of micro finance programmes to assure accessibility for persons with
disabilities, and if so: what adaptations are needed? Etc.
2. With loan programmes for disabled persons, but through own
implementation i.e. using revolving funds. Many of these loan programmes have
passed through a prior phase where grants were given to the beneficiaries to start-
up or expand their income generation activities. How do the participants assess this
change? Is there a place for grant programmes depending on the situational
context, characteristics of the beneficiary group or of the implementing agency
and other factors, or should organisations always be advised to use loans as a tool
for financing the beneficiaries‟ income generation activities
3. Disabled persons are not a homogeneous group. Among them there are
also less vulnerable and more vulnerable groups. Do the new approaches, loans
instead of grants and inclusion of disabled persons in mainstream micro finance
programmes, not carry the risk that the more vulnerable among them will be
excluded from the programmes?
2.3. Methodology:
4
Some of the organisations that participate in the workshop have experience
with programmes linking micro finance institutions with income generation
programmes for disabled persons. (EFPD, HI-Lyon, LCI). Other organisations
implement loan programmes using revolving funds (APDK, CBM-Ethiopia).
Further we have participants (HI – Nairobi, UPDK), and an MFI (K-Rep) that
have no experience with the implementation of income generation
programmes for disabled persons, but can bring in their expertise in other
fields.
We hope to capitalise on the respective experience of each of the
participants. Mutual exchange of experience and opinions will be the main
tool to gain more profound insights. We will use a workshop-methodology
requiring an active participation.
Participants will be asked to provide input for the discussions through short
presentations about specific features of their programmes, that can inform
us about the opportunities but also the constraints of the different
programme approaches, and to draw ‘lessons learnt’.
3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
5
The success of this workshop, which was focusing on “good practices for economic
Integration of person with disabilities” was as a result of concerted efforts made by
various organizations.
The presence and active participation from the representatives of APDK Embu, Kisii
and Mombasa, Christofel Blindenmission (CBM) – Ethiopia, Ethiopia Federation of
Persons with Disabilities (EFPD) Ethiopia, HI, K-Rep Bank ( A Micro-finance
Institution in Kenya)(KREP), Leonard Cheshire International (LCI), National Union of
Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU), and Tecilien Institute for Empowerment
(TTE) (a consultancy Organization) was actually the driving force behind the
generation of great ideas and sharing of experiences. All of you deserve special
thanks for your generosity in finding time and other resources to contribution
towards the success of the workshop.
Special thanks goes to Mr. Ton de klerk a consultant for Handicap International,
who steadily steered the entire process by way of facilitation. In the same vein, we
acknowledge the efforts and contributions made by Ann Leymat, the lead adviser in
livelihood and socio – economic integration
Last but not least, we acknowledge the Handicap International (HI) Team in Kenya,
which played a major role in preparatory activities especially in the aspect of
addressing various needs in regard to Logistics and their hospitality, extend to the
participants.
To all of you, thank you.
Handicap International
4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6
The complex nature of addressing the felt needs by people living with disabilities
(PWDs) has been a great puzzle to many development agencies.
One of the most critical issues all over the world has been a clear understanding of
disability in the context of development. For example, are PWDs perceived as
equal participants in development or are they just passive recipients of benefits? Is
disability synonymous to inability?
With these questions and others that cannot be presented here, HI took an
initiative to try to share views with other stakeholders with aim of generation of
ideas and facts on setting guidelines in regard to “good practices for economic
integration for disabled persons”. It is for this reason that there was need to gather
ideas from various organizations, with diverse experiences and approaches.
Having in mind that PWDs are not just a single homogeneous group, attention has
been paid on understanding the various approaches that could be applied under
various circumstances. For example, the support to IGAs; Do we need to introduce
loans or grants? Do the Main stream MFI‟s regard PWDs as potential clients? How is
the linkage between MFIs and SHGs?
The presentation at different sessions tried to answer these questions ands others
that are relevant to the critical issue of socio – economic empowerment of PWDs.
The methodology applied in the workshop embraced participatory technique and
group discussions, as opposed to the tradition of turning workshops into training
forums.
It was indeed, a healthy forum, which produced realistic and sound facts that will
go a long way in making a solid contribution towards the setting up of practical
guidelines on the good practices for economic integration of PWDs.
It was indeed a healthy forum, which produced realistic and sound facts that will
go along way in making a solid contribution towards the setting up of practical
guidelines on the good practices for economic integration of PWDs.
7
Day 1
Workshop
Wednesday 15th March
Presentations from participants highlighting their experience in economic
integration and livelihoods projects for disabled people. Open discussion, exchange
and group work.
5. INTRODUCTION
In her opening remarks the lead adviser in livelihood and social – economic
integration in Handicap international, Ann Leymat thanked all the present members
for finding time to attend the workshop.
In a broad view, she expressed that HI was in the process of carrying out a study
aimed at yielding factual guidelines for social – economic integration of PWDs to
formulate policies on linking them (PWDs) with other stakeholders with different
approaches. In addition, she puts emphasis on the fact that there is need to
sensitize MFI‟s on how to meet the financial needs of PWDs and other vulnerable
groups.
In view of this the workshop was expected to provide a healthy forum for exchange
of ideas and experiences but not training.
The HI consultant MR. Ton de klerk echoed similar sentiments and gave a brief
background of the study in which he reflected on various areas where the first
phase of the study had been carried. He mentioned areas such as India,
Bangladesh, and Uganda and emphasized that the workshop in Kenya was mainly
going to focus on exchange of experiences.
Objectives of the workshop
Sharing of experiences in relation to linking of income generation programmes for
disabled persons with the mainstream micro finance programmes institutions:
1. Exchange of experiences in regard to loan programmes for disabled persons
through their own implementation using revolving funds (commonly referred
to as self help Group).
2. Have Discussions in view of the inclusion of the most vulnerable groups,
having in mind that the PWDs are not a homogeneous group. Among others to
discuss the approach of loans vs. grants.
8
6. PRESENTATION BY ORGANISATIONS
Before addressing the key issues stated above, the representatives of various
organisations had an opportunity to give their presentations, and this formed the
basis of the discussion after knowing who does what and how?
6.1. Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya (APDK)
- Embu Branch
Location: This is operated on the northern side of the eastern province of
Kenya and is based at Embu town in Provincial General Hospital. It serves
Kirinyaga, Mbeere and Meru south Districts.
Main focus: One of its major services is the micro – finance programmes.
Besides serving the PWDs with their others needs (mainly medical) they also
focus on their social – economic welfare.
Approach: Formation of self help groups. An umbrella body evolved, leading
to the birth of a CBO, knows as „Twaweza‟ which means ‘we are able’
members save to before accessing loans.
Members guarantee each other.
Objectives: Social – economic empowerment of PWDs.
Activities of ‘Twaweza’
Training group members on how to initiate and manage group IGA‟s, e.g.
Bee keeping
Poultry keeping
Cereal stores
Loans disbursements to individuals in groups
Capacity: 16 primary groups registered under „Twaweza‟ with a total of
331 persons.
Target group: PWDs Guardians and parents.
Loan repayment period: 3, 6 and 12 months
Main stakeholders. PWDs, government of Kenya, Polio Hilfe Kenya – in
Germany.
Problems:
Dependency attitude some PWDs and their guardians feel they are entitled
to grants and loans without necessary repaying
High illiteracy levels, leading to poor business management
The prevailing general poor economic situation has an adverse affect on the
savings and loan repayments.
9
6.2. LCI (Leonard Cheshire International)
Location: Sub regional office in Tanzania, with two independent
microfinance Organisations in Tanzania.
Approach:
Formation of groups and centres
Working in collaboration with PWDs and their families DPOs Government
departments and targeted mainstream microfinance
Group guarantee for loans to individuals.
Objective: Social – economic employment of PWDs and other families.
Main Activities: Organising workshops and PWDs, DPOs government and
mainstream MFI‟s
Formation of technical committees
Training MF providers to capacity build them.
Training PWDs, guardians and parents an entrepreneurship skills,
Credit and business management.
Saving and credit.
Capacity: Total clientele 312 in two years, 40% are PWDs.
Target Group: PWDs, and families with PWDs
Loan Repayment: Variable between 12 others 2.5 weeks; Interest rate 24%
others 2.5 – 4%
Common businesses:
Selling used and new clothes.
Fish mongering
Food venting
Selling cell phone cards
Grains business
Retail shops
Local brew
Animal husbandry among others.
Achievements:
At least 15 PWDs have joined mainstream MFI‟s.
Replication e.g. from Dodima to Kibaha Project.
Creation of real links with Heifer International project (Wood saving stoves)
Project who are supporting LCI clients.
A client (PWDs) who is also a project steering committee member has been
elected councillor of Dodoma municipal council. This is an indicator of
positive public opinion and confidence towards PWDs which is gradually
changing.
Improved social – economic status of the PWDs
10
Lessons learned:
The involvement of DPOs is crucial for mobilization and assurance of
individual disabled persons to benefit from the mainstream MFI‟s.
Disabled persons have a high potential that can be tapped.
Through group formation, MFI can be an entry point for participation of
Disabled persons in wider development activities in their communities.
Challenges / problems:
The pace of change is slow among key stakeholders in economic
empowerment of PWDs, despite the gained attitudinal change regarding
credit worthiness of PWDs.
Limited business opportunities in the project area eg Dodoma is one of the
driest part of Tanzania.
Most of the MFI‟s approach for this initiative is profit oriented and reduction
of operation cost but not taking PWDs needs as a human right issue.
6.3. APDK – KISII
Location: Operates in Kisii in southern Nyanza in Kenya. It started in 2003
Main aim: Empowering the disabled people economically
Approach: Formation of groups of PWDs and loans given to individuals in the
groups.
Members guarantee each other
Mobilisation of PWDs
Community entry through community leaders
Understanding their people and their community of origin
Initially, we gave grants but later changed to loans
Target group: Disabled people (PWDs) and parents with PWDs
Criteria for Loan Issue:
Training before loan issue
Member must have a saving
Must be from a group
Members must guarantee the applicant.
The applicant must have an IGA
The applicant must be well known by the group.
Field visits by the branch officers to the applicant.
Lending interest rates:
The programme charges 1% interest on reducing balance method. The
interest is minimal as it will not meet the running costs.
Insurance of 2% is charged on the loan.
11
Training:
The training covers the following:
The component of savings and its importance
Sustainability of the programme
Self reliance to PWD
Business management
Loan management
Impact of the Programme/Benefits:
Improved the standard of living of PWD
There is self reliance among clients
The programme is now community owned.
Better ways of programme sustainability of IGAs is being learnt.
Challenges:
Lack of income to most pwd
Low level of education
Lack of access to information
Poor methods of record keeping
Poor attendance to group meetings
Stigmatisation among the disabled.
Quasi organizations.
Most MFI do not accept pwd.
Low level of self esteem.
Interventions:
Encourage them to save
Train them simple book keeping
Awareness creation to policy makers
Advocacy on human rights
Through groups of disabled people.
Conclusion:
The programme has a potential of growing to be a larger
6.4. APDK MOMBASA
Not yet started. A project in loans to PWDs.
6.5. UPDK
Not yet started. A project in loans to PWDs.
12
6.6. K–REP Group
K-REP is currently a microfinance commercial bank. It began in 1994 as an NGO.
It has one of the three arms of the K-rep group of companies, namely:
1.K-Rep Development Agency (an NGO)
2.K-Rep Bank
3.K-Rep Advisory services
Who does what? (Approach)
The NGO (K–Rep Development Agency)
It is much more involved in testing micro financing. It advances loans to
HIV/AIDS affected and infected people
It also partners with other strategic institutions to serve the HIV/AIDS
infected and affected people
It carries out market research for HIV/AID infected and affected people.
The K–Rep Bank
Responsible in advancing loans through group membership and they guarantee each
other.
The bank has the commercial approaches that it undertakes loaning while the NGO
on the other hand serve as the testing ground for the products of the bank.
The K – Rep bank is of AMFI.
It serves PWDs, so long as they fit in their lending criteria.
6.7. Ethiopian Federation of Persons with Disabilities
It is 3 years old.
Target Group: women only (PWDs). Have a total of 200 women, 100 are in
business.
Stakeholders: The Ethiopian Government. Women using contact persons.
Main activities:
Basic business skills training. The training materials are
translated into local language
Different disability groups receive different training
Vocational training e.g. sweater making, and embroidery to prepare them
for business related to their training.
After training, they are linked to MFIs. Some money is deposited to the banks which
give the clients loans. (1000 birr- Ethiopian currency per year).
13
Problems/ challenges:
PWDs are perceived as a risky group and most MFIs find it difficult to give
them loans.
Saving is not easy for most PWDs especially business starters.
The level of loans, 1000 Ethiopian birr is very little. This is the average loan.
The repayment period (1 year) is a short period.
Some people do not like the group approach.
Complaints arise, as there is no service to men.
The interest rates are not favourable to most PWDs.
Achievements:
Already 61 clients have received loans.
Through group approach, members can share goal practices.
Group members can change their business for more favourable choices.
Funding: By ILO
Approach:
Sensitization is not done before linking them to MFIs. It is done later.
Satellite offices are set up to reach the people (decentralization from Addis
Ababa).
The AMFI office links them to the MFIs.
6.8. CBM- Ethiopia (Christoffel Blindenmission)
This is a funding organization.
It works with partners, focusing on individual economic empowerment.
Approach:
- Initially, it was used to initiate sheltered workshops, targeting families
and individuals.
- Since 2002, they adopted the individual approach. In this case, the
individual may organize themselves into a self- help group.
- After funding, 25 to 30% remain with the group (community).
- They usually refer the clients to government institutions.
- The partners make follow ups and monitor the beneficiaries.
Achievements:
They have attained economic empowerment of individuals.
They support clients on start up capital.
14
6.9. NUDIPU-Uganda
There are three programmes
Main activities: Capacity building for PWDs to link them to MFIs.
What kind of training?
Business skills training
Types of service:
AMFI links PWDs to MFIs to get loans and grants.
AMFI gives them a chance to make choices of their business.
They key issue is that AMFI links them to available opportunities.
6.10. Handicap International
HI had an experience in the Central Africa Republic.
Approach:
1. Financial support to PWDs and facilitation to access credit.
2. Non financial support.
This involved technical training, coaching, monitoring and training.
In financial support, the following were the key components.
1. Sensitizing and Awareness
2. Counselling (feasibility study, business plan)
3. Selection
4. Committee (approved or not)
5. Financial Partner (MFIs)
loan disbursement
6. Training (on use of loans)
7. Follow up
8. Social and economic integration
15
Difficulties:
Different expectations from different stakeholders.
Socio- economic context, civil war, a very poor business environment that lead to
serious effects in the success of the project
Impact:
Economic benefit by the beneficiaries.
Increase self esteem
Self-reliance was increased.
A notable experience:
Not all had capacity, experience and drive to undertake business.
16
Day 2
Workshop
Thursday 16th March
Day 2 will follow on from Day 1, with a more practical focus. Practitioners will have
the opportunity to exchange experience, and identify strategies, lessons learned
and collaborative approaches to improve financial access and inclusion for disabled
people.
7. GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Group presentations were done based on the following:
What are the similarities and differences in program design? What have been the
problems? What have been the results, what lessons have been learned? Can the
programmes easily be replicated?
7.1. Group 1 (EFPD, HI, and LCI)
These groups had the following presentations:
Comparative analysis between LCI, HI and E:
Project Similarities Differences
design
The preparation and negotiations
1. Project takes 1 to 2 years None
conception and
life span. The actual project implementation
takes between 2 years 4 years
E: Targets women only
2. Target Target all types of disability LCI and E: Both targets
group family members
LCI: Targets guardians as well
3. Objectives To empower PWDS socially and None
and aims economically
4. Context All have urban base project LCI – Also has rural projects
17
Financial products – loan
Business management training LCI & E: compulsory savings
5. Products & Vocational training (HI, LCI) for a certain % of the loan
services Advice and follow up (Technical) HI- grants in kind
Business development services E- Vocational training
(marketing) carried in formal institutions.
Social participation LCI & HI
Capacity building of the partners in
disability
Beneficiaries: DPOs & MFIs E. Evaluation of business
carried by MFI‟s and other
Government partners stakeholders i.e. they play
(Social affairs & labour) the role facilitation.
MFI: They train in BDS (Business
development services) E: Evaluation of business
6. Stake Assessment do decision done by MFI‟s and stake
holders and and approval holders (facilitation role)
roles Loan disbursement
Management and financial recovery LCI: Monitoring is done by
DPOS. local NGOs/ partners i.e. the
Do promotion of projects mainstream development.
Do mobilisation (to identify
beneficiaries) E: DPOS carries follow up
NGOs implement other services and BDS (business
e.g. BDS and vocational training Development Services)
7.Resources HI, LCI – co funding done by MFI‟s E: 100% funded by donors
and partners
Awareness: Teaching stakeholders
8.Approach to demonstrate that is possible to None
Factor for main PWDS.
mainstreaming Empower PWDS to fight for their
rights (an important prerequisite)
9. Project HH, LCI, done by local partners E. Done by DPOS
Implementation
10. Project Done by committees (drawn from None
management stakeholders)
11. Monitoring LCI, HI, E. They do monitoring & E.External monitoring and
and evaluation evaluations evaluation. is also carried out
18
Problems experienced:
Partners
Conflicts of interest/ difference of expectations: Usually different partners have
different perceptions of the same project. For example, some interpret partnership
in terms of the benefits they can get.
Poor interests: Some partners have poor interests, hence the efforts towards the
success of the projects is limited.
Beneficiaries
Poor family support – some Families do not support PWDS.
Dependency attitude. Most PWDs still believe in being supported by others
Diversion of funds to other needs. This leads to poor performance in
business.
Over expectation by beneficiaries: some of the beneficiaries expect too
much and their business plans may not be realistic.
Economic context
Most developing countries have limited business opportunities due to
economic & political reasons
Community
Negative attitude by community members towards PWDs, hence limited
support.
Lack of marketable skills and appropriate curriculum
Results:
PWDs are loanable and credit worth.
Increased confidence / self esteem of PWDs.
Economic improvement of PWDS.
Once common understanding is reached, they can interact well with other
community memberships.
Positive attitude change of partners MFIS.
Social acceptance and participation of PWDs
Having role models of PWDs- who really inspire others to know that they can
succeed life.
Access to long term loans from MFI‟s.
Lessons learned:
The social economic environment can be accessible if there is the will
PWDs are potential productive agents of development
Flexibility is important in the projects
The products in MFI‟s should be demand driven for effective service to PWDs
Replication:
By borrowing good practices, the successful projects can be replicated without
necessarily “inventing the wheel”
19
7.2. Group 2
Similarities of self help groups:
The saving components cuts a cross
Existence of group work but individual benefits
All groups have constitutions and by laws and are registered
All groups give loans
All group members identify their own business project
Loan size depends savings and ability to manage the loan
Ownership of group system is a common feature
Group members guarantee all loans
The training components cuts a cross
All have low or no interest
All loans are approved by a committee or any other form of management
structure approves all loans
Differences:
Subdivision of groups does not occur in all organisations
Some projects started on self initiatives while others were mobilised
externally, i.e. some groups were already engaged in other IGAS or other
group projects, but joined savings and credit later
Some loans in –kind while others in cash return hence there is freedom
Some have flexible repayment period
Problems of self help groups:
Dishonest behaviour of leadership e.g. fraud can be committed
Low self esteem among the PWDs
Limited or lack of information about the market situation
Low participation of PWDs in self- help groups due to lack of resources/
volunteerism
Lack of vision or clear cut objectives of the self groups
Lack of sustainability mechanism
Lack/limited of saving capacity by PWDs
Lack of saving culture
Physical distances limit the PWDs from participating in group activities
Lack of government policy to support the PWDs in microfinance programs
Lessons learned:
To pay much attention for start up phase
Formation of group is vital
PWDs have a potential of managing their own affairs
Organisations image on work is important
Experience from CBR groups expecting free things (dependency attitudes)
Group pressure mechanisms can work for the common good of all members
Frequent small savings can build into bigger savings
PWDs have willingness to change
20
Replication
Consultation should be done first with the MFI‟s and the beneficiaries
BDS should be carried out to beneficiaries
There should be a careful selection of MFI‟s who are committed to serve
PWDs
There should be sensitization of beneficiaries
Capacity building should be undertaken to beneficiaries through DPOs
The MFI‟s should have commitment/ attaching value to PWDs in the program
Proper follow up mechanism of the loans and BDS should be enhanced
8. DISCUSSION ON CRITICAL ISSUES
8.1. Group work
Q1.What do you think of:
a. MFI – linkage strategy?
b. Self help group approaches?
Q2. What do you think in your organization about?
a. MFI strategy
b. Self help approach
Should they be introduced?
8.2. Group presentation
Group 1
MFI have more funds therefore there is a good reason to link PWDs to MFIs.
MFI have good established structures.
MFI‟s should change there attitudes to accommodate a wide range of
clientele e.g. PWDs.
MFI‟s are permanent and sustainable so they can assure future access for
PWDs.
MFI‟s have to be sure that PWDs have sufficient Competence, otherwise they
will drop out.
MFI‟s should develop a policy to encourage inclusion of PWDs (most MFIs
leave PWD‟ out).
Inclusive education. Schools are not always well equipped. They should be
equipped to serve the needs of PWDs so that we can be sure that PWDs can
compete.
Governments should assure incentives to support or motivate PWDs.
We need a strategy for rural outreach of MFIs.
21
Approaches
The two approaches (MFIs and SHG) are important but have to undertaken
professionally and strategically. This should be based on:
Context skills, background, size of target group, level of awareness and
understanding of economic conditions, business planning and types of
business.
Size and demand of capital may require MFI‟s where the SHG cannot meet
the demand.
SHG needs more opportunities, information and resources to scale up the
business
Threat: stigmatization of PWDs may continue with the SHG.
Start up business need grants from SHG and then move to a second level to
join MFIs.
There is need for campaigns for promotion of understanding between SHG
and MFIs.
Threat where DPOS are weak, they may fail to support SHGs effectively and
may shy a way to approach MFIs for linkage.
The scattered nature of SHGs may hinder the existence, formation and
management of strong networks of SHG.
Encouraging formation of gross disability SHG.
Threat: MFIs have been targeting less vulnerable groups. SHG may be
favourable because of their flexible approach.
Group 2
Microfinance Strategy
MFI‟s should not replace SHG approach.
Dual approach is more favourable
SHGs to nurture groups / individuals to MFI‟s
Components of fear.(we should play an active role) is it attitudinal or
factual?
Self management of funds by CBOs or umbrella organization should be
encouraged.
There is need for programmed training on need as it arises
There should be only one loan for one individual and the other
subsequent loans.
Other views
Village banks should benefit all members of the society. (None disabled persons
should be charged different interest rate)
Groups could be open to non disabled especially parents and care givers. Three
kinds of members should be addressed.
1. Disabled
2. Parents
3. Trainer (on behalf of disabled person)
22
Monitoring and evaluation should be done at all level e.g.
1.Group level
2.Program level
In NUDIPU (Uganda), the groups are self managed and run their programmes
independently. Most groups are rural based.
How do they deal with proximity challenges? Due to vast distances; groups formed
within villages, small areas. Also because of use of bicycles to take them to
meetings is practised.
The start of small groups which consist of five to six members who live together for
purpose of regular savings and or meetings. Group attendance enhanced by the
spirit of merry -go-round and constitution/ by laws.
9. CONCERNS AND FOCUS ON OTHER CRITICAL ISSUES THAT
EMERGED DURING VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS/ PRESENTATIONS
IN THE WORKSHOP.
9.1. Grants vs. Loans
After an exchange of ideas on this matter, members expressed the fact that SHGs
exclude most vulnerable PWDS because of the saving requirement.
In regard to this, it was unanimously agreed that most vulnerable
categories require start up capital (grants) and the PWDs should participate
fully to identify the beneficiaries.
For complimentary purposes, it was also agreed that merry- go –
rounds can be a viable means for inclusion of the most vulnerable.
9.2. Repayment of loans
It was observed that reasonable repayment period for loans should be critically
analysed depending on the nature of business. One of the greatest fears was that
when loans are to be repaid immediately after the start of the business (e.g. in less
than a month). Then, the business may never sustain itself since there is a
possibility of ploughing back all the profits to service the loan. The most affected
in this area are those in the category of business starters.
23
9.3. Linkage to Mainstream MFIs and its complex nature
Bearing in that the PWDs are not homogenous, their socio- economic empowerment
demands a realistic integration of different stakeholders and different products.
This is a crucial element in meeting their diverse needs, which needs to be
addressed under different socio- economic and political circumstances.
9.4. Attitude
It emerged that the socio- economic empowerment of PWDs centres on attitude. In
this context, it came out clearly that development begins with the “self”. The
PWDs are themselves the “driving force” for their own development. For any
positive change, they must stand firm and face the challenges in life like other
people. Coupled with this, the societal values must change so that they stop
discriminatory practices against PWDs.
Consequently, stigmatization against PWDs would be minimal (if any) and all people
would be included in the mainstream development.
9.5. Group Dynamics
Cutting across in various discussions, it was clear that groups serve pivotal role in
individual success, especially PWDs. They are actually the “power houses” for
individual PWDs to air their views and lobby against any form of abuse. More
important, it is a strong avenue towards the linkage and inclusions of PWDs to the
mainstream MFIs. In conformity with this, the discussions converged on the fact
that effective service to groups should be decentralized to where the people are.
9.6. Charity versus demand for repayments
Despite the various need for grants at different levels and circumstances, it
became evident that sustainability of the projects is mostly attained when the
beneficiaries make a contribution towards the benefit they receive from SHG or
even the MFIs. The critical question was “Where do they get the first money to
save?” Hence the need to explore the approach on grants vs. loans.
10. Conclusion
24
The workshop created a realistic approach to sharing of ideas and a real exchange
of experiences. The diversity of approaches from diverse backgrounds was a
healthy forum to generate practical guidelines, in the effort of addressing the
noble task of improving access and inclusion of the PWDs to the mainstream MFIs. It
is our sincere hope that this will not only link the PWDs to MFIs but also lead to
attaining a lasting socio- economic integration of PWDs to the mainstream
economy.
11. ANNEXES
25
Programme schedule
Day 1: 15th March 2006
9.30 hrs. Welcome. Short introduction of the aim of the workshop, the
programme and the methodology. Short introduction of the
participants.
10.00 hrs. Short presentations (10 – 15 minutes) by the participants that
implement economic integration programmes for disabled
persons, with a short discussion after each presentation (10 –
15 minutes).
First round: APDK (2 branches) and CBM-Ethiopia.
11.15– 11.30 hrs. Short break
11.30 hrs. Second round: EFPD, HI-Lyon, LCI
13.00 – 14.00 hrs. Lunch break
14.00 – 14.30 hrs. General discussion of issues raised in the morning
presentations
14.30– 14.45hrs.
Explanation of assignments for the afternoon workshops
14.45 – 17.30hrs.
Group work
The participants will be divided in two groups.
Group 1 (core group: EFPD, HI-Lyon, LCI) will discuss their
experience with linking income generation for disabled
persons with micro-finance institutions.
What are the similarities and what differences in the
programme designs? What have been the problems? What
have been the results? What lessons have been learned? Can
the programmes easily be replicated? If so, what conditions
should be fulfilled?
Group 2 (core group: APDK and CBM) will discuss their
26
experience with the loan programmes and the transition from
a grant to a loan programme.
What are the similarities and what differences in the
programme designs? What have been the problems? What
have been the results? What lessons have been learned?
And: Should organisations always be advised to use loans as a
tool for financing the beneficiaries‟ income generation
activities, or does it depend on the situational context,
characteristics of the beneficiary group or of the
implementing agency and other factors?
17.30 hrs Closure
Day 2: 16th March 2006
27
9.00 – 9.30 hrs. Presentation by Group 1 of the results of their discussions of
the previous day.
9.30 – 10.15 hrs. Discussion
10.15 – 10.30 hrs. Short break
10.30 – 11.00 hrs. Presentation by Group 2 of the results of their discussions of
the previous day.
11.00 – 12.00 hrs. Discussion
12.00 – 13.00 hrs. Lunch
13.00 – 15.45 hrs. Programme to be defined (after consultation with
participants)
15.45 – 16.00 hrs. Closure
NOTE
The issues noted and expounded on, on page 21 that is, grants vs. loans
,repayment of loans, the complex nature of linkage to main stream MFIs, attitude
,group dynamics ,charity vs. repayments would have been otherwise been part of
the annex. They are crucial issues that emerged during various stages of the
discussions during the workshop. It was not an assignment given to any group but
some of my key observations.
28
The table below summarizes the contacts of various representatives from
Different organizations
1. PETER M. KARIUKI APDK- EMBU P.O. BOX33, EMBU
BRANCH E-MAIL: apdkembu@yahoo.com
TEL. 0722353035
2. ALICE MUNALKA UDPK P.O. BOX13488 -00800 NAIROBI
TEL: 4443830
3. CONSILETA APDK- MOMBASA 0733273544
MAUMBINJI 474078471840 470271
4. SHITAYE EFPD - ETHIOPIA 250 – 11- 1232553
ASTAWES E-MAIL: efpd@ethionet.et
5. NICODEMUS APDK - KISII TEL: 0721 583 543
KARAU
6. GINASON JANDWA LCI- TAMANIA MOBILE: +255744644602
E-MAIL:
tanzaniacheshire@hotmail.com
7. JOICE W. KIMANIDAGORETTI MOBILE: 0726747104
GACHUI
8. BONFACE KABURU TECILIEN CELLPHONE 0734 – 557935
INSTITUTE FOR BOX 74828 – 00200 NAIROBI
EMPOWERMENT E- MAIL: t- empowerment
9. TITUS CHEYA K REP BANK BOX 25363-006,TELL
0203871511
EMAIL-tcheya@k-repbank.com
10. ACHAYO ROSE NUDIPU P.O BOX 8567KAMPALA,TEL:
+256-41-5640179.
E mail: nudipu@utonline.co.ug
11. TIGABU CBM EMAIL.tigabugm@ethionet.et
GEBREMEDHIN Tel: +251 911235169
12. ANNE LEYMAT HI EMAIL.aleymat@handicap-
international.org
13. JORAM KISUNA HI EMAIL.kisuna2003@yahoo.com
14. TON DE KLERK CONSULTANT EMAIL.klerkton@yahoo.com
29
