My last post...

My apologies, it has taken a while but here, at last, is my final post. My last days in Aceh were rather hectic. Of course I had tasks to finalise, things to hand over and I had to find the time to say goodbye to everyone.

In the meantime, I have been in the Netherlands for a couple of days, with mixed emotions. On the one hand, it is always great being back home and reuniting with family and friends. On the other hand, however, I am already missing Indonesia terribly much. Aceh has made a deep impression on me.

Aceh is a beautiful place and the Acehnese are absolutely fantastic; they are ever so friendly and hospitable people. I am really glad to have had the opportunity to come into contact with them and learn about their culture and traditions. I am also extremely happy to have been able to spend the past six months working for the IRC. It has been a true education that has allowed me to grow on both personal and professional levels. I have been exposed to a wonderful programme and I feel much pride for having contributed, however minimally, to the recovery of Aceh after the devastating Tsunami of 24 December, 2004. I am particularly proud to have been working for the Community Driven Regeneration (CDR) programme, which truly seeks to empower small communities. I feel that beneficiaries ought to be placed at the centre of their own development efforts and that our role should be that of facilitators and capacity builders, 'merely' serving as catalysts. Evidence from the field of development over the past 30 years clearly shows that active participation is a key factor for successful programmes. It empowers communities and creates a sense of ownership, which is crucial for sustainability. I am a strong proponent of community driven development approaches I am really grateful to have been able to learn more about such programmes and to have been given the opportunity to contribute to the IRC’s CDR programme in Aceh.

Thank you all for reading my Blog, I hope you found it insightful. I will keep you posted about my next step!

Take care,

Alex

December 1st - Best practices

Meulaboh from above

Over the past couple of weeks, I have spoken with the CDR teams in each field office about community involvement. The aim of this exercise was to identify best practices for involving the community in each step of the CDR programme. Answers were sought to the following four questions:

• What has worked well?
• What has not worked well?
• What solutions were found? and
• What should be done differently in the future?

For the rest, the discussions were rather open which made it possible to delve into interesting points as they would surface. Depending on the situation, discussions were held with either all CDR teams or each team separately. A number of individual discussions also took place.

At this point, I am still busy synthesising all the information in order to draw out a set of lessons learned that apply to all fields. Here are already a number of noteworthy points that have come up:

Natural entry

A number of teams felt that the best way to enter a new community is to do so by motorbike and wearing everyday clothing. CDR staff find it important to approach and explore new communities in a neutral manner. Not advertising that they are with an INGO allowed them to better blend in with the community and talk informally. Staff therefore recommended against initially arriving with an IRC car and wearing t-shirts with donor logos.

The (informal) coffee shop approach

Local coffee shops, called warung, play an important role in Acehnese culture. Acehnese people are very social and generally drink a lot of coffee. There is unanimous agreement on the fact that local warung are ideal places to meet the real community, get to know people and talk informally about life in the community. Furthermore, openly discussing project progress and constraints with Community Development Boards (CDBs) in warung also greatly benefits transparency in later stages of the programme.

Children = more women

Organising special activities for children during the Community Participatory Assessment Workshop (CPAW) has a number of advantages. For one, children can contribute to the identification, analysis and ranking of community problems in creative manners. In addition, including CPAW activities for children will increase the number of women attending since they will not have to worry about leaving their children behind with no one to look after them.

Recruiting and replacing CDB members

In the future, when CDB roles are being specified and selection criteria are being developed, extra attention should be paid to agreeing on procedures to either replace or recruit extra CDB members. The CDBs are dynamic institutions; there is natural turnover (e.g. due to death or migration) and experience has shown that some members simply do not become active. At this point, CDBs are generally unprepared to replace or recruit extra CDB members pro-actively.

Many more best practices for involving the community more effectively in each step of the CDR programme were identified. Among other things, the usefulness of Quick Impact Projects (QIPs) as a means to build up trust in the community has been reconfirmed. QIPs are likewise a good indicator for determining the success of subsequent projects. There is also general agreement on the fact that the best time to hold CPAW meetings is in the evening and that the communities themselves should determine the date, time and place for the next meeting. It is also best to have a day or two between the CPAW to let things sink in and to give the community an opportunity to exchange ideas. And so many more lessons were learned…

That is it again for this week!

Take care and see you next week,

Alex

November 24th - Something different

Something different in this week’s weblog! While my own contribution to this post is limited to a series of Meulaboh sunset pictures and this short introduction, I have asked one of my colleagues to write the body. Rina Rozana, the CDR technical unit’s grant officer, has taken the time to share some of her background, views and experience with us. Rina is a strong woman with an amazing strength of character. She is a valued member of the CDR team and a great colleague. Here is her story.

Take care,
Alex

*************************************************************

My name is Rina Rozana and everyone usually calls me Rina. The Tsunami catastrophe on December 26, 2004 has changed my whole life since it took my parents and my only younger sister, my grandmother also and 20 other family members including my aunts and cousins. It has really changed my point of view to face this kind of life and the way I work.

I have been working for the IRC since October 10, 2005 under Livelihood Program Department. Before joining the IRC, I was working for International Consultant based in UK for almost 3 years (since October 2002 to August 2005) that worked for irrigation sector project in Aceh. Previously, I was working only for my own career and benefit. However, my orientation spontaneously changed when I started to join the humanitarian agency especially when I saw directly the people’s livelihood condition in post tsunami. Having much money does not mean anything if there are no places for buying and getting foods or other basic needs.

There is a big difference between working for economic profit companies and humanitarian organisations like the International Rescue Committee. Working for an NGO makes me feel like I really work for my own people or my own community, particularly where the Community Driven Regeneration (CDR) programme is concerned. I am sure that this programme can bring a great impact to the community since it encourages the improvement of community participation and capacity building in managing their own development program based on their priority needs.

The only problem I have on my side of the implementation of the CDR programme is communication and coordination among the CDR team members. It is impossible to have good results, particularly in getting feedback and reporting required from the community representatives through CDB, without good communication among the teams. To overcome this problem I usually communicate with the teams, especially to CDR managers through email, by phone (for clarification of information and data) or even in direct field visits for opening interactive discussion with the teams, particularly regarding financial and narrative monitoring reports and the simplest bookkeeping issues as well.

I personally hope that IRC can develop better coordination and communication systems for the implementation of the next CDR programme as a manifestation of sustainable development programme that can make the community survive when all NGOs have to leave Aceh sooner or later.

Regards,

Rina Rozana

Total dedication for better life

“Here is the only place I have with tears of sadness and happiness. I came alone to this world and no need to scare to be alone since I will also go alone to the last place I have to be...return to loneliness under the guidance of my Almighty God”

Always be grateful of what you have even though life is never fair….

*************************************************************

November 17th - Paid CDB members

Much of this week was spent doing the same things I did last week – monitoring projects, assessing training needs for staff and Community Development Board (CDB) members, collecting ideas for cross-visits, identifying best practices for mobilising and involving all community social groups – only this time in our field office in Teunom. In addition, I spoke with a number of CDBs and asked them to give us recommendations for a suitable candidate to attend a school committee training.

Now let us turn to the question of whether or not the CDB members should be paid. As I mentioned last week, this is a question that is frequently put to us by both CDB members and, on occasion, by CDR staff. It has also come up in the group discussions about best practices in both Calang and Teunom.

Let me put everything in context by briefly summarising the CDR strategy. After an elaborate selection procedure, the chosen communities are approached and informed about the CDR programme. Should they agree with the programme, a partnership agreement is signed between the community and the IRC. A comprehensive Community Participatory Assessment Workshop (CPAW) then takes place during which a number of participative exercises are carried out with the beneficiaries. This process culminates in an action plan and the CDB members are elected on the basis of the qualifications required to implement this plan. The CDB fine-tunes the action plan, writes a community proposal and is consequently responsible for all phases of the project cycle. The communities can claim a grant of up to 55.000,- USD (approximately 43,000,- EUR) to realise their project(s).

So the members of the CDBs are considerably burdened. Their roles demand both time and effort. They have to coordinate everything effectively and are required to meet, monitor and report frequently. Moreover, as mentioned in my weblog from September the 22^nd, they must adhere to stringent procurement, bookkeeping and other procedures. Because the majority of CDB members have employment or work in the field or out at sea, this is something they must do in their spare time.

Bearing this in mind, on the one hand, it would only be fair that the CDB members are somehow compensated for their labours. In my post dated August 25^th, I also pointed to the wave of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) that responded to the Tsunami of December the 24^th, 2004. Communities sometimes have the 'luxury' of being picky about their donors and may not find the idea of implementing projects themselves, as is central to the CDR approach, very appealing. Whereas the IRC has taken the lead in community driven development, many organisations require less active forms of participation from their beneficiaries. Furthermore, during the emergency phase, many communities have received aid in the form of food-for-work or cash-for-work programmes and in some cases were paid per diems to attend meetings. For these reasons, it has often been a challenge to convince our target group of the CDR programme’s approach in which, all of a sudden, they were required to do everything by themselves and even contribute to the costs (usually in natura). Another argument that is put in favour of paying the CDB members is that doing so will decrease their incentive to engage in corrupt practices.

On the other hand, however, it is not like the CDB members gain nothing from their work. After all, they receive substantial grants to realise their own community projects. Also, it is made clear from the beginning that the CDB roles would be demanding and that this should be given due consideration in selecting its members. It is likewise made clear from the start that the functions will be unpaid and that they would therefore have to find dedicated individuals who are willing to work for the good of the community. It is also a matter of sustainability. The IRC and other (I)NGOs will eventually pull out of Aceh. Naturally, we hope the CDBs will continue to exist in the communities, coordinating development efforts and approaching other instances to seek funds for new projects. If the IRC paid the CDB members and was to leave, chances are these institutions would dissolve as they would suddenly be required to continue doing the same work without pay.

Nevertheless, I am not per se against the idea of somehow compensating the CDB members for their time and efforts. I would have no objections if the communities decided to offer the CDB members some form of reward out of their own pocket. That, at least, would be sustainable! In any case, I do not see it as the IRC’s role to pay the CDB members. Often, however, it is not about money but recognition, but this recognition is too quickly and too often sought from the IRC while they forget that they are not working for the IRC; they are doing it for themselves. The recognition should therefore come from the communities (but they can always count on support and encouragement from the IRC)!

That is it for this post; I hope you return next week!

Take care,

Alex

November 10th - Some interesting statistics and findings

This week I left the relative comfort of Banda Aceh and returned to our field office in Calang and, as usual, it is always nice to be back in the field!

I have been spending my time here monitoring a number of projects, assessing training needs for staff and Community Development Board (CDB) members, collecting ideas for cross-visits, identifying best practices for mobilising and involving all community social groups and, finally, I have been working on the layout for a report which will be marking the two anniversary of the Tsunami.

Unfortunately, I am a little pressed for time this weekend so I am not going to be writing much in this week’s post. But here’s what I am thinking of writing about next time… Last week I wrote a little something about corruption and this led to a number of interesting discussions. One of the things that came up was the issue of whether or not CDB members should be paid for their work. This is a question that is frequently put to us by both CDB members and, on occasion, by CDR staff and I think it would be nice topic to explore.

For now, however, you are going to have to make do with a small sample of bullet point statistics and interesting findings that came out of our database. This will help you get an overview of who we are working with, or rather for, and the types of projects the communities are implementing. Bear in mind that the information about the CDB (member) profile and the priority needs and community projects is somewhat outdated. Information is missing for three communities where, at the time this data was analysed, the Community Participatory Assessment Workshop (CPAW) was in full progress and the CDBs were yet to be formed. But this is unlikely to have a great impact on the data presented below.

CDR Community Profile:

• The total population of the 42 communities we work in is 15,642;
• The average population size of the CDR communities is 372, with an average of 128 households per community;
• Three quarters of the communities we work in are not only tsunami affected but also conflict affected.

CDB (Member) Profile:

• On average there are 8 CDB members in a CDB;
• One third of the CDB members are women;
• The greatest number of CDB members fall in the age category of 30 to 34 years old;
• All CDB positions (e.g. coordinator, secretary, treasurer, logistics, other specific functions and simple member), with the exception of the role of treasurer, are dominated by men.

Priority Needs and Community Projects:

• A total of 426 priorities were ranked in 39 communities;
  
• 163 of these priorities are currently being addressed by the communities through the CDR programme;
• The communities contribute an average of 18.1 percent of the total project costs;
• The most frequently mentioned community priorities relate to social/cultural matters (26.8 percent), environmental health (19.7 percent), roads and/or bridges (11.7 percent), agriculture and/or fisheries (11.3 percent) and economic issues (10.3 percent);

Social/cultural priorities includes various types of centres (e.g. community centre, women’s centre, youth centre), sporting facilities and/or equipment, traditional ceremonial equipment and ‘other’ whereas the environmental health category includes water and sanitation (e.g. drainage, latrines, safe drinking water) and environment (e.g. environment cleaning, reforestation, sea and river defence)

• The majority of community projects address social/cultural issues (40.1 percent) or deal with roads and/or bridges (19.1 percent), environmental health (12.7 percent), agriculture (11.5 percent) and economic issues (7.6 percent);
• Close to two thirds of the projects are infrastructure projects;
• The higher the priority rank, the greater the proportion of priorities have been included as community projects – in other words, the emphasis clearly lies on tackling the most pressing community needs;
• Two thirds of the community projects target all community members alike while a significant percentage is aimed specifically at women (15.8) and children and/or youth (15.2);
• The community problem rankings have been consulted by a total of 52 other government or non-government organisations in 29 of the 39 communities. This has contributed to the identification and current implementation of an additional 58 projects in 26 communities, each of which is targeting a listed community priority.

See you week!

Take care,

Alex