Q1

Were there any agreement / MoU? between DWMA and anchor of CLRC

An MOU is a symbol of institutionalized relationship among several partners. Livelihoods Resource Centers are established to institutionalize capacity building services delivery systems within APRLP. For every cluster of 80 to 100 watershed projects, a Cluster Level Livelihoods Resource Center is established. These centers are not just physical entities. They are expected to grow into vibrant learning centers for the neighborhood. For achieving this, considerable hand holding support is required. For facilitating this support, some of the centers are anchored by Resource Organizations from NGO sector. An MOU was conceived to formalize their role in this process. Capacity Building strategies of GoAP have a clear focus on the formalization of the partnerships between GO and NGO in the context of capacity building agenda.

Similarly, the existing infrastructure available within districts is accessed by DWMA for this purpose. It was important to have a clear MOU between the owners of this infrastructure and DWMA for the use of their infrastructure.

• MOU was signed among four parties (CRD, AMR APARD, DWMA and anchoring NGO), in case of all NGO Anchored LRCs. Though this process had some gaps and procedural delays, the MOUs are finally singed. In case of 67% Independent Resource Organizations, this MOU is not relevant. However, Community Managed Resource Center has am MOU between Board of Directors and Supporting NGO. This MOU explained the roles of each partner and purpose of agreement. The time frame of support is also mentioned in the MOU.

• In case of DWMA anchored D CLRCs, the need for MOU is mainly in the context of training infrastructure. DWMA entered into agreement with either department or private party (owner of building). It is observed that the MOU is not really respected by the owners of the training premises, in at 80% of these cases. There seems to be considerable competition for accessing and using district level training infrastructure. The convergence among several departments is not rally taking place in functional aspects. It has impacted the quality of the training programs and also continuity. There is a need to reconsider the location of district level training infrastructure, in case of DLRCs, for effective functioning of the LRCs.