Ensuring Equitable Distribution

In the days following the tsunami, staff members of GEF/ SGP fanned out to visit some of the affected areas to observe the extent of devastation to lives and property. Their intent was to assess the urgent and immediate needs of the affected people.

Nearly sixty applications for funding were received from NGOs at the UNDP office and copies thereof were sent to each of the NSC members. Proposals written in the local languages, Sinhala or Tamil, were accepted in keeping with GEF/ SGP practice. This ensures that funding is made accessible to all.

The GEF/ SGP National Steering Committee performed the same role for SSGF and followed the similar selection procedure that is normally adopted for the appraisal of GEF/ SGP proposals. During the two weeks following the receipt of proposals, members evaluated each project independently.

The major parameters considered were:
· Innovation – Creativity of project concept
· Provision for Community participation in design, implementation and evaluation
· Sustainability – Capacity to sustain the project beyond the funded period.
The minor criteria considered were:
· Realistic budget - Costs for stated activities should neither be under- nor over-estimated
· Social equity – Focus on women and marginalised groups and practices
· Other issues – Relevant factors that are not addressed elsewhere

Having scrutinised each project proposal in the interim, members shared their feedback and concerns at an NSC meeting.

Not all of the proposals could be approved; approval needed to be based on the quantum of funding available. Therefore, the selection process first weeded out projects based on conformity to SSGF guidelines and feasibility. Where unrealistic budgets were apparent, such proposals were rejected on grounds of infeasibility.

Thereafter, the members’ scores were tabulated, with each one’s score getting an equal weightage. Interestingly, when members gave marks, a pattern was perceptible - the differences were often marginal. While some project proposals qualified automatically, there was a lot of heated discussion at times when it came to rejecting a borderline proposal. At times a few good proposals from capable NGOs had to be turned down due to paucity of funding; hence, rejection did not necessarily reflect lack of merit.

The NSC members visited almost all project sites before proposals were given the collective stamp of approval.

Most NGOs working with UNDP had good track records. They took on work in areas that they had not previously operated in because the process of rehabilitation had to be commenced expeditiously.

When projects were approved, it was important that UNDP have the monitoring capacity to ensure proper deployment. In the absence of this capacity, there was the likelihood that the money could have been diverted for purposes other than those for which it was meant. Hence, if there was no NGO willing to work in certain badly affected areas, such areas did not receive SSGF funding – because there was no delivery mechanism.

SSGF funding reached the people who deserved it, although it was not consciously allocated to districts in proportion to the extent of devastation. Every affected person deserved support, irrespective of whether he/ she hailed from the badly devastated area such as Kalmunai in the East or marginally affected Moratuwa along the West coast. If an individual’s house got washed away, it did not matter to which district he belonged. The primary objective of any recovery programme is to restore the livelihoods; restoration and development of Infrastructure are concurrent or supporting activities.

The tsunami recovery programme involved several livelihood development initiatives that involved the improvement of the lives of women. The gender issue was thus consciously addressed. The improvement of domestic infrastructure was addressed by building kitchens and toilets in existing houses that did not possess the facility earlier. The centres of population as a whole benefited from infrastructure such as playgrounds, multi purpose community halls, repairs to school buildings and roads, and also community wells and water-tanks.

Individual grants to NGOs ranged from US$ 4,000 to 25,000. These resources helped two categories of people:
· Those who were economically productive previously but lost resources, who already had the right mental make-up
· Those who were previously inactive but were provided with the impetus and opportunity to redeem themselves

Prof. Nalini Ratnasiri, the Chairperson of the NSC says, “I have learnt a lot about my country from the people I met. These people have been battered by the tsunami, conflict and poverty. Yet, when I visit them, I never cease to be amazed at the resilience, hospitality and innovativeness of the Sri Lankan people.”