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