Chapter 3: An Economic Diagnosis of Your Area¶

Why the diagnosis comes before everything else¶

A club that does not know its local economy designs projects with no roots in the ground. TRF staff spot this weakness on the first page. A superficial Community Needs Assessment is, remember, the leading reason a humanitarian Global Grant is rejected (Chapter 0). But this upstream flaw has a deeper cause: the club never did the mapping work in calm times, before any project even emerged.

This chapter covers that upstream work. Knowing your area is not a project step. It is a permanent stance of the CED club, which the coordinator updates every year, just like the minimum standard audit.

An important distinction. This Chapter 3 is about the club's overall area diagnosis: a broad, annual, strategic view. Its purpose is to know who the players are, where the needs lie, where CED makes sense, and which themes the club should adopt as priorities. It is not the same thing as the Community Needs Assessment for a specific project (Chapter 9), which formally documents the needs of one precise intervention and is attached to the Global Grant application. The area diagnosis feeds the club's strategic intelligence; the CNA feeds a TRF application. The two coexist: the first prepares the ground, the second harvests from it within a defined scope.

A club that invests four to eight weeks in its area diagnosis then saves six months on its project cycle. It is one of the best time-to-return ratios in the whole CED system.

The five layers to map¶

The area diagnosis is organized into five successive layers. Each one gets a summary table and a paragraph of analysis. Work through them in order: populations first, because they give the work its meaning; networks last, because they are only worth something in relation to the needs.

Layer 1: Populations¶

Data to collect	Why it is strategic	Typical source
Total population, age pyramid	Calibrate the scale of any intervention	National census, INS (national statistics institute), ONS
Monetary and multidimensional poverty rates	Identify priority areas for intervention	INS, World Bank, UNDP
Unemployed youth (ages 15-24 and 25-34)	Key target for vocational training	ILO ILOSTAT, labor ministry
Female heads of household	Key target for microfinance and savings groups	Census, household surveys
Displaced persons or refugees	Specific status, varying access rights	UNHCR, local authorities
People with disabilities	Cross-cutting CED inclusion obligation	Census, associations
Adult literacy rate (by gender)	Shapes the training tools	UNESCO, education ministry

The populations layer is never read as a block. It is read disaggregated: by gender, by age, by geographic area (urban, peri-urban, rural), by status (formal, informal, displaced). A country's national average is almost never the average of the club's area. The classic mistake is to quote a UNDP figure without checking whether the intervention zone sits above or below that average. Vulnerable groups (unemployed youth, female heads of household, displaced persons) must be identified by name, because they will become the targets of the projects and of the disaggregated indicators TRF requires.

Layer 2: Economic activities¶

Data to collect	Why it is strategic	Typical source
Dominant sectors (agriculture, crafts, trade, services, industry)	Point to the right CED intervention family	Economy ministry, INS, chambers
Local or regional GDP, if available	Economic scale of the area	INS, regional statistics
Rate of economic informality	Shapes access to credit and social security	ILO, household surveys
Dominant legal forms (micro and small businesses, SMEs, cooperatives, sole proprietors)	Entry point for support	Business registry, chambers
Seasonality of farm income	Critical for microfinance and savings	Agriculture ministry, field
Growth sectors identified by the government	Alignment with public policy	Regional development plans

You do not design a CED project against the local economic structure; you build on it. An area dominated by subsistence farming is not the same as one dominated by informal retail or by craft processing. The informality rate is the most telling indicator: above 80%, classic individual microcredit struggles, and VSLA or cooperative models take over. Identifying the dominant legal forms then lets you choose the right entry point: a chamber of trades and crafts for artisans, an agricultural cooperative for producers, an incubator for urban micro-entrepreneurs.

Layer 3: Economic infrastructure¶

Data to collect	Why it is strategic	Typical source
Markets, market halls, storage areas	Selling what is produced	Field, town hall, land registry
Roads and access, bridges, rural tracks	Opening up isolated areas economically	Public works ministry, maps
Power grid, solar, coverage	A precondition for any productive activity	Utilities, energy ministry
Mobile and Internet connectivity	Mobile money, e-commerce, training	Telecom regulators, ITU
Credit access points (banks, MFI branches)	Map of financial inclusion	Central bank, MFIs
Food processing equipment	Agri-food value chains	Agriculture ministry, NGOs
Business parks, business nurseries, fab labs	Entrepreneurial ecosystem	Development agencies

This layer answers a simple question: what already exists, and what is missing? An isolated area with no passable road in the rainy season will not benefit from an agri-food value chain project until the access problem is solved. An area with no mobile coverage will not benefit from a mobile money project. The infrastructure diagnosis protects you from useless projects: the ones that add a part to a system whose previous part is missing.

Layer 4: Institutions¶

Data to collect	Why it is strategic	Typical source
Commercial banks, local development banks	Formal finance	Central bank
Licensed MFIs (microfinance institutions)	Preferred CED partner	Central bank, national MFI network
Existing cooperatives (farm, credit, craft)	Groups ready to mobilize	Ministry, chambers, ICA
Chambers of commerce, of trades, of agriculture	Sector entry points	Chamber directory
Certified vocational training providers	F1-F4 partners	Ministry, ILO
Business incubators and nurseries	L3 partners	Development agencies
Decentralized government services	Permits, co-financing	Prefectures, sub-prefectures
Town halls and local governments	Potential project owner	Directly
Regional development agencies	Project alignment	Public bodies

The institutions layer is decisive because it determines who the club will sign MOUs with. An area where a licensed MFI already operates, with Client Protection certification and relevant sector coverage, is an area where a microfinance project can rely on an existing institution: Rotary does not need to create one, and would not seriously try to anyway (Chapter 10). Conversely, an area with no MFI and no credit cooperative points toward community models such as VSLAs or self-managed savings groups.

Layer 5: Networks¶

Data to collect	Why it is strategic	Typical source
CED NGOs active in the area	Partners and benchmarks	NGO registry, ministry
Local and community associations	Field relays	Field, community leaders
Cooperative movements and umbrella bodies	Shared expertise	Cooperative federations
Active diasporas (hometown associations)	Co-financing and expertise	Diaspora ministry, associations
Neighboring Rotary clubs, Rotaract, Interact	District coordination	District directory
Universities, engineering schools, IUTs (technical institutes)	Student and research resources	Higher education ministry directory
Faith-based actors (Caritas, CRS, Aga Khan)	Methods and coverage	Religious networks

Networks are not scenery: they are the condition for sustainability. A CED project that has no local institution to take over when it ends is a project that collapses by month six (M+6). The networks layer identifies in advance the relays (associations, cooperatives, NGOs, universities) that will carry things forward, and whose existence shapes the exit strategy (Chapter 21).

Needs × capacities × opportunities matrix¶

The five layers produce raw material. The needs × capacities × opportunities matrix turns it into meaning. It is the synthesis tool that lets the CED coordinator show the club board, in two pages, where CED makes sense in the area and from which angle.

Identified need	Existing local capacity	CED opportunity	Potential partners	Priority
Rural women with no access to credit	1 licensed MFI, 15% coverage	Expansion via VSLA savings groups	MFI X, CRS, cooperative Y	High
Unskilled urban youth	2 outdated training centers	Revised curricula for growth trades	Chamber of trades, ILO	High
Unstructured shea sector	200 individual women producers	Processing cooperative	Agriculture ministry, Heifer	Medium
Informal retail trade	Saturated markets, no halls	Covered hall + formalization	Town hall, UNCDF	Medium
Digital inclusion of farmers	Mobile coverage but low use	Mobile money training	Operator, MFI, MTN/Orange	Low

This matrix has a direct operational benefit: it gives the club three to five priority opportunities, each already equipped with an existing relay and a potential partner. When a project comes along, you no longer start from a blank page; you start from the matrix. The rule is to enter at least seven needs and to come out with three priority opportunities rated high, approved collectively by the CED committee.

Official sources by region¶

A diagnosis is only as good as its sources. Clubs that cite Wikipedia or a business press article are discredited in three lines by a TRF reviewer. The sources below are the reference sources every CED coordinator must know how to consult.

Region	Source	Data provided
France	INSEE, `insee.fr`	Demographics, poverty, median income, employment
France	Banque de France, `banque-france.fr`	SME financing, over-indebtedness rates
WAEMU (West Africa)	BCEAO, `bceao.int`	Financial inclusion, monetary aggregates
CEMAC (Central Africa)	BEAC, `beac.int`	Same data, CEMAC zone
English-speaking Africa	World Bank Data, `data.worldbank.org`	All internationally comparable indicators
Africa	African Development Bank, `afdb.org`	Country studies, sector policies
Latin America	CEPALSTAT, `cepalstat.cepal.org`	Social and economic statistics
Latin America	IDB, `iadb.org/en/data`	Regional projects and studies
Asia	ADB Data Library, `data.adb.org`	All Asian countries
Southeast Asia	ASEANstats, `aseanstats.org`	ASEAN bloc
World	UNDP Human Development Reports, `hdr.undp.org`	HDI, inequality-adjusted HDI
World	UN SDG Indicators, `unstats.un.org/sdgs`	SDG tracking by country
World	GDACS, `gdacs.org`	Disaster alerts, useful for context
World	World Bank Open Data, `data.worldbank.org`	Gini index, GDP per capita, all series
CED-specific	CGAP Global Findex, `globalfindex.worldbank.org`	Financial inclusion, all countries
CED-specific	ILO ILOSTAT, `ilostat.ilo.org`	Employment, informality, decent work
CED-specific	International Cooperative Alliance, `ica.coop`	Global map of cooperatives
CED-specific	UNCDF, `uncdf.org`	Local development finance

Practical rule: every club area diagnosis cites between ten and fifteen official sources, distinct and dated. If the report cites only three, it is too thin. If it cites thirty, it is too dense and will not be read. The target is twelve.

Field interviews: the method¶

Official sources are not enough. They aggregate, they go out of date, they miss local dynamics. The diagnosis is completed by a series of field interviews, carried out with a rigorous method. This step takes four to six weeks for a well-organized club; eight weeks if the coverage is broad.

Whom to interview first¶

A series of fifteen to twenty-five interviews, selected using the following grid.

Profile	Why	Suggested number
Community leaders and traditional chiefs	Customary authority, social roots	2-3
Local elected officials (mayors, councilors)	Public policy, local priorities	2-3
Local entrepreneurs (micro and small businesses, SMEs)	Practical view of the real economy	3-5
Leaders of associations	Field relays, knowledge of vulnerabilities	2-3
Women representatives (groups, cooperatives)	An essential gender perspective	2-3
Young people (students, apprentices, youth NGOs)	Generational dynamics	2-3
MFI and credit cooperative representatives	The reality of financial inclusion	1-2
Heads of training institutions	Match between training and jobs	1-2
Decentralized government services	Sector policy, co-financing	1-2

What to ask¶

The interview lasts forty-five minutes to an hour. It does not ask "what are your needs?", a trap question that invites a shopping list. It asks open, specific questions.

What are the three most important economic changes in your town over the last five years?
Which groups are hardest hit by the current economic difficulties?
Which initiative, past or current, seems to you to have worked well? Why?
Which initiative failed? Why, in your view?
If you had USD 50,000 to invest in your area over the next three years, where would it go?
Who in this area could be a reliable relay for CED action?
Which permits, or which authorities, do you need behind you to act here?

How to conduct the interview¶

The capabilities approach (A. Sen, Chapter 4) shapes how you listen. You respect the other person's agency: you promise nothing, you hand out nothing, you never imply that a project has already been decided. The club is in a listening phase, not an announcing phase. An interview in which the Rotarian talks for more than five minutes out of sixty is a failed interview.

Ideally, two Rotarians work as a pair: one leads, one takes notes. Recording only with explicit consent. The local language whenever possible, otherwise through a reliable interpreter. Notes are typed up within 24 hours, faithfully, without paraphrasing.

How to report back¶

At the end of the cycle, an eight- to twelve-page synthesis is produced. It is shared with the key interviewees for validation before any external communication. This cross-check prevents misunderstandings and builds trust for future projects. It also grounds the diagnosis in shared voices, not in the club's one-sided view.

Ethics¶

Explicit consent. Anonymization when needed, especially for interviews with women in patriarchal settings, or with informal entrepreneurs who fear attracting official attention. Secure storage of notes. Audio recordings destroyed after transcription, unless permission to keep them has been given.

Mapping your area: a concrete format¶

The diagnosis takes shape as three maps. Not a sophisticated GIS: three paper maps in A2 or A3 format, backed by a shared digital version.

Map 1: Priority action zones. Urban neighborhoods, rural villages, peri-urban areas where the identified needs are concentrated. Three to five zones at most; beyond that, the club spreads itself too thin.
Map 2: Institutional players. Locations of banks, MFIs, cooperatives, chambers of commerce and trades, town halls, CED NGOs. This is the map that prepares the partnerships.
Map 3: Economic resources and infrastructure. Markets, passable roads, training centers, warehouses, business parks. This is the map that determines feasibility.

Practical tools: Google My Maps for the shared digital version (free, shareable, mobile), OpenStreetMap for a richer base map in African or Asian settings, free land registry maps obtained from the town hall or the prefecture. Total equipment cost: zero, apart from printing.

The three maps are kept at the club's headquarters and with the CED coordinator. They are updated every year. They are presented to the board of directors and to the incoming president at the handover of officers.

The club's area diagnosis sheet¶

The sheet below is the formal deliverable of the diagnosis. It is filled out over several pages, signed by the CED coordinator and the president, and kept on file at the club for at least five years.

ECONOMIC DIAGNOSIS OF THE AREA: Rotary Club of ________________
Date completed: ___/___/______     Next review: ___/___/______
Prepared by: __________________________________________
Approved by: __________________________________________

1. AREA IDENTIFICATION

Town(s) or zone(s) covered: ___________________________________
Estimated total population: ____________________________________________
Land area: ____________________________________________________________
Administrative divisions: ______________________________________________

2. POPULATIONS: LAYER 1

Age pyramid (three brackets): __________________________________________
Monetary poverty rate: _________________________________________________
Youth unemployment rate (ages 15-24): __________________________________
Female heads of household (number / percentage): ______________________
Displaced persons/refugees: ____________________________________________
People with disabilities: ______________________________________________
Adult literacy (men / women): __________________________________________

3. ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES: LAYER 2

Dominant sectors (top 3):
  1. ________________________________   estimated share: _____ %
  2. ________________________________   estimated share: _____ %
  3. ________________________________   estimated share: _____ %
Informality rate: ______________________________________________________
Local/regional GDP (if available): _____________________________________
Growth sectors: ________________________________________________________

4. INFRASTRUCTURE: LAYER 3

Markets and market halls: ______________________________________________
Road access (condition, seasonality): __________________________________
Electricity coverage: __________________________________________________
Mobile / Internet coverage: ____________________________________________
Credit access points: __________________________________________________

5. INSTITUTIONS: LAYER 4

Banks present: _________________________________________________________
Licensed MFIs: _________________________________________________________
Cooperatives identified: _______________________________________________
Chambers (commerce, trades, agriculture): ______________________________
Training providers: ____________________________________________________
Decentralized government services: _____________________________________

6. NETWORKS: LAYER 5

Active CED NGOs: _______________________________________________________
Notable local associations: ____________________________________________
Active diasporas: ______________________________________________________
Neighboring Rotary clubs: ______________________________________________
Universities / schools: ________________________________________________

7. NEEDS × CAPACITIES × OPPORTUNITIES MATRIX (excerpt)

| Need   | Local capacity   | CED opportunity | Partners    | Priority |
|--------|------------------|-----------------|-------------|----------|
| ______ | ________________ | _______________ | ___________ | ________ |
| ______ | ________________ | _______________ | ___________ | ________ |
| ______ | ________________ | _______________ | ___________ | ________ |
| ______ | ________________ | _______________ | ___________ | ________ |
| ______ | ________________ | _______________ | ___________ | ________ |

8. THE CLUB'S THREE PRIORITY CED OPPORTUNITIES

Opportunity 1: ________________________________________________________
   Intervention family (M / F / V / C / L): ___________________________
   Likely partners: ____________________________________________________
   Time frame: ________________________________________________________

Opportunity 2: ________________________________________________________
   Intervention family (M / F / V / C / L): ___________________________
   Likely partners: ____________________________________________________
   Time frame: ________________________________________________________

Opportunity 3: ________________________________________________________
   Intervention family (M / F / V / C / L): ___________________________
   Likely partners: ____________________________________________________
   Time frame: ________________________________________________________

9. SOURCES CITED (minimum 10, ideally 12)

1. _________________________  7. _________________________
2. _________________________  8. _________________________
3. _________________________  9. _________________________
4. _________________________  10. ________________________
5. _________________________  11. ________________________
6. _________________________  12. ________________________

10. INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED

Total number: _____     Period: from ___/___/___ to ___/___/___
Profiles covered (check):
  [ ] Community leaders     [ ] Elected officials  [ ] Entrepreneurs
  [ ] Association leaders   [ ] Women   [ ] Youth
  [ ] MFIs / cooperatives   [ ] Training  [ ] Government services

Synthesis shared with interviewees:  [ ] Yes   [ ] No

Signatures:
  CED coordinator ________________   President ________________

Sample CED profiles by type of area¶

To illustrate the approach, here are three typical profiles. Your club probably resembles one of them, or combines two.

Rural club in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., rural Burkina Faso or Côte d'Ivoire)¶

Dimension	Dominant profile
Populations	Young, rural, poverty rate 40-60%, low female literacy
Activities	Subsistence farming + cash crops (cotton, shea, cashew), informality > 85%
Infrastructure	Seasonal roads, limited electricity, growing mobile money
Institutions	Caisses populaires (credit unions), OHADA agricultural cooperatives, a few MFIs
Networks	Agricultural NGOs (Heifer, TechnoServe), active diasporas, CRS

Dominant needs: rural financial inclusion, structuring of value chains, functional adult literacy, training in farming and craft trades. Relevant intervention families: M (microfinance, VSLAs), V (agri-food value chains), C (OHADA cooperatives; OHADA is the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa).

Urban club in Latin America (e.g., Colombia or Ecuador)¶

Dimension	Dominant profile
Populations	Young and urban, internal migration, pockets of peri-urban poverty
Activities	Trade and services, urban informal economy, manufacturing SMEs
Infrastructure	Well equipped downtown, run-down on the outskirts, strong digital coverage
Institutions	Banks well established, developed microfinance, public incubators
Networks	IDB, universities, urban NGOs, active RAGCED LATAM chapters

Dominant needs: youth entrepreneurship on the outskirts, economic inclusion of migrants, formalization of micro-businesses, digital skills training. Relevant intervention families: F (vocational training), L (integrated local development, incubators), M (urban microfinance through MFIs).

Peri-urban club in South Asia (e.g., rural India or the Philippines)¶

Dimension	Dominant profile
Populations	Dense, feminization of poverty, marginalized castes or communities
Activities	Agriculture + crafts + light industry, seasonal labor migration
Infrastructure	Very developed mobile money, irregular electricity, variable roads
Institutions	SHGs (self-help groups), NBFC-MFIs, dairy cooperatives, public banks
Networks	RAGCED Dakshinpatha chapter, strong NGOs (BRAC, SEWA), universities

Dominant needs: women's savings groups, dairy value chains, technical trades training, digital financial inclusion. Relevant intervention families: M (SHGs, microcredit), F (technical training), V (dairy and textile value chains).

Annual update¶

The area diagnosis is not an archive document. It is a living tool. Its cycle is annual, aligned with the Rotary year.

June. The CED coordinator launches the review. Official sources are updated (many publish in May-June). The matrix is reviewed with the CED committee.
July-August. Additional interviews if needed (three to five new ones, so you do not redo the whole cycle every year).
September. The updated version is approved by the CED committee and presented to the club board of directors.
October. Shared with the district (DRFC, District CED Chair if the position exists) and with neighboring partner clubs.

The update is never a ritual. Every year, two or three parameters have changed: a new mayor, an MFI that has closed, a value chain that has emerged, a regional funding stream that opens up. A club that keeps this rhythm has a local intelligence that few NGOs maintain. It is a real comparative advantage in the competition for TRF funding, and above all a sign of seriousness that institutional partners recognize.

Priority actions from this chapter¶

Before moving on to Chapter 4, make sure your club has:

A club that meets these ten points satisfies criterion no. 4 of the minimum standard on its own (Chapter 0). It is operationally ready to start designing a project. Chapter 4 now turns to CED principles and ethics, without which the best diagnosis produces only projects that are technically correct and humanly questionable. A good diagnosis sets the where; ethics sets the how. The two are inseparable.