* REPORT : 1

Thoughts from Asia

Hi everyone

I have just come to the end of my visit in Asia – and if I have been a bit quiet, it was not because I’ve had such a quiet time. The experiences were wide and many and I want to thank everyone for making this possible. The list of people is very long, since I’ve visited India, Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. I’ve managed to do some writing about most of the visits, especially since some of them included Namibian exchanges – so these documents are available for those that feel inclined to read them. There is also some attempt to make videos, a new skill I started working on as advised by Sheela.

I’ve used the last three days in Asia to go through the numerous documents that all compete to become finalized, but still would like to reflect on federations, and their processes, and how the poor are involved in improving their lives, as I’ve experienced some. Now please take this from me from very short experiences and what I am saying is not to say we cannot learn and share with them – every country has a very unique context. But it helps me to reflect a bit, so please tolerate if it is a bit crude:

In short - India with a leadership structure not easy the replicate outside of the Indian culture – but with an enormous impact. The poor people are improving their lives.

Pakistan - the poor has to speak through academics. But are there opportunities for the real marginalized to become involve in their own development?. But, in the words of Ousie Edith: What happen to the very poor?” We did not spend enough time to find out.

Nepal - here I am concerned – they tried to copy the Indian model – but I have my reservations. Maybe they could do with some African experiences – I strongly advise on his, but only if they want to change. There are many similarities to the Namibian situation, before the days of the federation – but are they looking for a different model? Because that was the only thing that made us change – we wanted a peoples organization and after 6 years I am still convince it was a good decision to go for that – but that is not to say that this is needed in every country. Communities organized on individual basis only on the basis of committee structures (excluding the women saving groups organizations – who are highly skilled in managing their savings – I do not think cooperative registration are needed to achieve this = those registrations are only symbolic) might find it difficult to manage resources on a larger scale - please note this is only an opinion.

In Thailand – it is the government agency through strong leadership driving a process enabling the community to become involve in many development activities. And communities are responding.

Cambodia – process has to be driven from outside (everyone is very concerned about it) – Using more exchanges between the groups to build the community – could it be a process to build the internal process? Too much money, role players and outside initiatives are not very good for building federation structures . But, lots of very exciting things happening where poor people improve their lives!! – and the upgrading strategy might put an end of evicting people by starting fires in their settlements. (We hope)

Laos: I was so impressed how the poor use their own resources to improve their lives and would like to see this in rural Namibia. Very simple (Somsook words) and the rural people are improving their lives!! Currently saving schemes are supported through socialists governmental Women’s Development Unions. Although the Unions are slightly exclusive the saving schemes do not appear to be so and they are using every cent to help each other. I hope the Women’s Development Union will also spread this throughout Laos, without too much power politics in their committees. The local base is so important.

Well not one federation model suite all – I suppose it depends on what one wants to achieve. It is helping a lot in Namibia (an I think in the other African countries too) to have a National Federation - we access resources, have a sort of very community driven leadership (which helps) although needing seriously to expand – and similar to Cambodia we are attempting to this through flattening our structures for more people to take active part in the process.

In Cambodia - without leadership what to do - do you flatten the structure and take away the national character – or do you look for potential leaders and strengthen them?

Thailand – has no national federation – in light of strong government support to communities does not seem necessary

India has a national federation but with an exceptionally wise and experienced leader – can’t imagine how this is replicable.

Nepal: this federation model is not the one we are familiar with - it has more similarities to how a workers union is arranged.

Well just some thoughts I collected

Anna