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

November 3rd - Communities fight corruption

Before turning to work-related matters, let me just quickly write about my weekend. I spent Saturday and Sunday in Gapang, on Pulau Weh (Sabang), with my fiancée. As always, it is a wonderful weekend getaway. I wrote before about the island’s green hills, fine white sand and turquoise water (see my post from July 7^th). There are excellent snorkelling and dive sites. We ended up making our first night adventure dive, which was really exiting. It is an altogether different experience than a day dive, with a completely different shift at work undersea. And even though people are often apprehensive about entering the water after dark, it is actually very serene. It is really not something you should be missing out on because of initial anxiety. In any case, we are well on our way to becoming advanced divers!

Now, as I promised last week, I am going to turn to the issue of corruption. Let us start by defining corruption: in broad terms, corruption is the unlawful use or misuse of influence or power in public office or any position of trust for private, dishonest gain. As mentioned by the World Bank, “[c]orruption comes under many different guises: bribery, misappropriations of public goods, nepotism (favouring family members for jobs and contracts), influencing the formulation of laws or regulations for private gain are common examples […]”.

Sadly, corruption is a serious issue throughout Indonesia. The country scores a mere 2.2 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2005; this being a scale ranging from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (highly clean). This ranks Indonesia 140^th out of a total of 159, thereby classifying it in the category of countries in which corruption is said to be ‘rampant’. A number of analyses point to the Asian financial crisis of 1997 as having triggered an upsurge in corrupt practices. Many, however, blame Suharto for creating a climate of corruption that has pervaded the whole economy. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), under his regime “a culture of corruption, collusion and nepotism became entrenched in the political and economic life of the country. Any business activity and operation requires the payment of irregular fees and/or commissions to cultivate relationships”. This paints a grim picture but there are encouraging signs as well. Of all countries, Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2005, cites Indonesia as the biggest optimist, believing that corruption will decrease in the next three year. This is projected on the basis of actual decreases of corruption levels in recent years.

Naturally, measures have been taken to minimise the risk of corruption in the IRC’s programmes, particularly in our grassroots community development interventions. To begin with, provisions in the initial partnership agreement and subsequent community contract legally bind the communities against unlawful or fraudulent actions and misuse of project resources. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my weblog dated September 22^nd, moral integrity formed an important criterion for the selection of the Community Development Board (CDB) members. Corruption was likewise mentioned by the communities as one of the main issues they were struggling with and wished to eradicate. In addition, in the same post, I referred to the rigid set of procurement and financial reporting procedures to which the CDB must adhere. Also, as a further precautionary measure, the grants are disbursed in a number of instalments with the final ten percent being transferred only upon completion. Moreover, great emphasis is placed on transparency and visibility. Among other things, public notice boards and project information boards, including project details, budgets and timelines, are to be placed in each community and in front of all projects. Community members are also encouraged to actively monitor the implementation of the projects and the CDB is to report to the community on a regular basis. And finally, the CDR facilitators have, and still are, playing an important role in sensitising the community members towards good practices. They are also keeping a close eye on progress.

Unfortunately, in spite of all precautions and safeguards, a limited number of minor transgressions have nevertheless taken place. In one case, a CDB member used project money for his own expenses. The community denounced him and raised funds to replace the missing money, thereby indebting the culprit to the entire community. In another case, overpriced traditional ceremonial equipment was purchased without quotations. The community felt suspicious and ordered the equipment to be returned. Nepotism and making price agreements with contractors and suppliers are other practices we must watch out for.

However, by knowing the risks, acquiring accurate information about prices and remaining alert it is possible to drastically reduce the incidence of corruption. Luckily, the communities themselves provide a considerable degree of social control and our observant staff is always on the field. By and large, cases such as those mentioned above have been both identified and exposed by the communities and/or CDB members, having themselves assumed a pro-active role in remedying the offences. In other cases, for instance, CDB members preferred going through lengthy tender processes rather than working with quotations, feeling that this would increase accountability and thus elicit more trust from the community. These are very positive developments. I feel it is important to discuss sensitive issues such as corruption simply because this is part of the reality we are facing in the field. It is also good to be able to discuss corruption openly with the communities. One must, however, take care to see this within the proper, larger context.

On a lighter note, I have included some pictures from Pulau Weh and from a livestock auction we have been to in order inform ourselves on purchasing healthy livestock for our animal husbandry projects. And finally, below, you will find the (almost complete) recipe for the Jungle Inn’s famous ‘Jungle Tea’. I would have published it in last week’s post, were it not for the fact that I had to identify a number of mysterious spices. I have tried, in vain, to find the names of all the ingredients: three are still missing! I have included a picture showing all ingredients (minus the honey); if anyone can provide me with the missing names, please do not hesitate!

That is all for this week!

Take care,

Alex

Jungle Tea

Ingredients:

• Honey
• Lime
• Lemon grass
• Cardamom
• Ginger
  
• Salam leaf or Indian bay leaf (curry leaves make a good substitute)
• Vetiver root
• Cloves
• Cinnamon stick
• Star anise
• ???
• ???
• ???