8 April to
1 May, 1992
Prepared
by
Nestor M.
Pestelos
Community
Development Trainer/ Specialist
UNDP/OPS
Integrated Atoll Development Project
MISSION REPORT –
Kiribati
30 April 1992
1.0 Introduction
The
Mission was undertaken from 8 April to 1 May in line with the preparation for
the implementation of the Outer Island Plan Implementation and Management
project (OIDPIMP), funded by the Forum Secretariat and with technical
assistance from the UNDP-OPS Integrated Atoll Development Project
(RAS/88/014). OIDPIMP provides a total
of 15,000 for each island, with no less than AUD 5,000 allocated as revolving
loan fund for income generating projects, and the balance for community
projects. Through this Island Development
Fund, OIDPIMP seeks to give impetus to the implementation of projects contained
in the Island Development Plan or those which will be subsequently formulated
based on the Socio-Economic Profile.
Both island profiles and plans in the 16 outer islands of Kiribati were
outputs of the IADP-assisted Participatory Island Profiling and Development
Planning workshops conducted last year.
In
implementing these projects, community groups and the local government,
including traditional and indigenous institutions, as well sectoral agencies
and NGOs based on each island, will be given opportunities to exercise and
further refine skills required to ensure sustained development plan
implementation and management.
A
community-based reporting and monitoring system will be established in at least
one island within six months of OIDPIMP implementation.
The
Mission sought to review the needs and potential of relevant institutions to
assume tasks related to the effective planning, implementation and management
of projects in the rural sector; the
existing systems or procedures for the monitoring of rural projects; and
experiences in implementing rural credit schemes.
2.0 Recommendations
OIDPIMP
seeks to enhance local capabilities with the
following package of interventions:
-
provision of funds for immediate support to income
generating and other village
development projects, with the funds under the joint administration of the
Island Council and the Island Development Committees;
-
hands-on training at all levels for all entities and groups
involved in the participatory project development process;
-
setting-up of a community-based monitoring and evaluation
system linked to relevant agencies at national and sub-national levels;
-
upgrading of national-level skills in the planning;
programming, monitoring and evaluation of all types of projects in remote
island communities.
To
facilitate OIDPIMP implementation, the following recommendations are submitted
taking into account the findings and observations of the Mission:
2.1 Conduct a
comprehensive assessment of the local-level institutional framework for outer
island development planning, implementation and management
Local-level
participation is vital for OIDPIMP, which seeks to broaden the implementation
and management base for development projects.
OIDPIMP provides an excellent opportunity to further strengthen the
integration of indigenous local-level decision-making into the development
process. These structures can be
broadened with the representation of groups whose involvement in village
development is quite significant.
OIDPIMP can help transform traditional structures into viable village
development maneabas.
Guidelines for the
formation of VDMs will have to be worked out.
Transforming the traditional village maneaba into a live development
forum will now be timely with the existence of village-specific action plans in
support of the Island Development Plan.
The plan implementation
phase also provides an opportunity to activate the IDCs and to work towards
exploiting fully their project coordination and management potential. The composition of each IDC will now have to
be reviewed to provide for the balanced representation of government agencies,
NGOs and community groups. It is
expected that the IDC will play a crucial role in OIDPIMP implementation,
specifically in the recruitment and training of VDMs, monitoring of projects
and the technical and social appraisal of projects proposed by community
groups.
As
OIDPIMP sets the pace for greater village involvement in development planning
and implementation, greater pressures will be exerted on the local government
structure for support services to local-level project development planning and
management. A thorough review of the local
government structure from a development management perspective will be quite
timely and advisable at this point.
2.2 Appoint
and intensively train a development coordinator to assist the Island Clerk
A
local government handbook published in 1983 lists 36 duties of the Island
Clerk. With the multiplication of
projects over the ten-year period, it is safe to assume that the Island Clerk’s
duties have increased rather than decreased.
It is the common experience of most projects that reliance on the Island
Clerk alone for the much-needed follow-through and monitoring activities,
including regular reporting, will not work.
In
keeping with the need to further strengthen the Island Councils, the
possibility of appointing the Assistant Island Clerk as the Island Development
Coordinator should be studied.
2.3 Define a
clear-cut policy to settle apparent confusion and conflicts in the provision of
sitting allowances and of community labor.
Provision
of sitting allowances for the Island Council and/ or training participants
varies from agency to agency, e.g. AUD 3.00 for the Ministry of Health; AUD
5.00 for some NGOs; AUD 10.00 for the credit unions. MHARD, on the hand, does not pay sitting allowances to training
participants.
A
similar situation exists with some projects requiring voluntary labor as local
counterpart to external inputs. Since
apparently most projects have deemed it wise to pay for local labor, projects which require labor contribution
suffer delays due to non-cooperation of community residents and, in some cases,
of local government functionaries.
Other
issues may require policy direction to be resolved. A review of policies in the sector is recommended.
2.4 Review the
tasks and functions of RPU in the light of new thrusts and developments in the
rural sector
Major
developments in the sector have occurred since the creation of RPU in 1989:
-
all 16 islands under MHARD jurisdiction have undergone a
participatory profiling and planning process, each island pursuing project
development goals with greater awareness of
local problems;
-
an Island Development Committee has been formed and mandated
by government to serve as technical arm of the Island Council in project
planning and management and thus broaden the base for local decision making;
-
an inter-agency national core team of trainers has been
organized and trained for more collaborative efforts in training and service
delivery to the outer islands;
-
the government has articulated a more vigorous thrust
towards outer island development to overcome gross social and economic
disparities between South Tarawa and the rest of the country;
-
a need has been identified to recognize to local village
committees as development entities and thus intensify community-based project
development.
All these
developments indicate an expanded role for the RPU. Rather than merely serve as a planning unit, it is called upon to
play greater coordinative role in the implementation and monitoring of rural
projects, as well as in strengthening local institutions which have assumed
developmental tasks.
The
functions of the revitalized RPU can include the following:
-
To formulate and recommend policies which will facilitate
the implementation of development planning and implementation of development
planning and management in the outer island with the broad-based participation
of all interest groups and sectors, the instrumentalities of local and central
governments and the traditional and indigenous institutions and organizations.
-
To further enhance the capabilities of the Island
Development Committee and its village-level counterparts as coordinative
mechanism for the effective planning, implementation, management and monitoring
of rural projects;
-
To establish and maintain an updated Monitoring and
Information System on the status of projects implemented under the Island Development
Plans;
-
To monitor the implementation of island and village
plans and assess the impact on the
overall development situation;
-
To formulate, review and recommend measures to further
improve the delivery of services by government agencies and non-government
organizations to the outer islands;
-
To liaise with the National Planning Office, government
agencies and NGOs with rural development programs and projects and donor
agencies for the formulation and systematic implementation of a national integrated
rural development program.
2.5 Define the
complementary role of OIDPIMP with other projects with similar components
The following projects were formulated during the
first quarter of 1992 with components
similar to OIDPIMP-
a) Te Bangke
Ibukin Kamauiraoaia Kain Abamakoro
(Bank of Community Development)
Proposed
by the National Planning Office, MFEP, it seeks to pilot in two islands a
Grameen Bank type of approach to the provision of rural credit.
b) National
Managerial Process for Outer Island Development
Proposed
by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, it seeks to establish a
national system for the preparation, monitoring, coordination, implementation
and acquittal of projects in the outer islands.
c) Development
Bank of Kiribati
Proposed
by the MFEP, it seeks to improve rural access to development finance
principally through establishment of the DBK agencies in 5 islands (Christmas,
Butaritari, Abaiang, Abemama and Tabiteuea North), considered with relatively
greater potential for further economic development.
A corollary need will be to
determine the feasibility of implementing as one project the two proposed
projects on rural credit. For all three
projects, OIDPIMP has the potential to provide inputs on specifically defining
their complementarity, determining areas for crucial collaboration and
identifying key indicators for project effectiveness.
2.6 Study the feasibility of formulating an
in-country technical assistance project to provide critical support to
strengthening rural development management in Kiribati
With the
perceived reduction of regional resources available for providing intensive
backstopping support required, it is advisable to study the feasibility of
providing such support with IPF resources.
Through
this in-country project, regional and in-country projects for implementation in
the outer islands will be provided prompt and systematic technical inputs to
ensure that their strategies and approaches reinforce the overall goal of
further enhancing local development management capabilities.
3.0 Findings/
Observations
3.1 Strengthening
local development management
a) Local
bureaucracy
Actually
a three-tiered system composed of the Island Council; the council employees,
with salaries paid out from local sources; and the national government
employees on detail to the council.
The
village elects a council member for each village every three years. The council members, in turn, elect among
themselves the Island Council President and Vice President.
These
include: the Asst. Clerk, Asst. Treasurer, typist, driver, sanitarian,
carpenter, cleaner, village wardens, nursing aides, 3-member boat crew,
rest-house caretaker, island community worker, messenger, and rest-house
watchman.
These
include: the Island Clerk, Treasurer, Magistrate, Court Clerk, 3 health
assistants, fisheries assistant, agriculture assistant, two police constables,
a special constable for each of the 13 villages, 16 teachers for 13 schools.
North
Tarawa has an Island Development Committee established since 1991 under a
government mandate. It meets every two
months as required by MHARD. Sitting
allowances (AUD 10 per meeting) are paid to members who are not on detail from
the central agencies.
The
vice president of the Island Council chairs the committee. Aside from 5 representatives of government
agencies and two council employees (island community worker, court clerk),
members include: the chairperson of the Unimane, the coordinator of Women’s
groups (in addition to a representative of the AMAK) and two representatives
from the SPC North Tarawa Project.
These
committees were formed early this year to complement the functions of the
IDC. No write-up on the specific tasks
of the committee was available at the council office. VDCs so far formed were in the following villages:
- Buariki (15 members)
-
Nuatabu (9)
-
Abatao (7)
-
Taburibana (4)
-
Buota (4)
No
follow-up meeting was conducted after the initial activity held to inform each
village about the need for such a committee.
It would appear, according to the Island Clerk, that each village with
the organized VDC submitted the names of those who attended the initial meeting
and considered them as the VDC members.
The Island
Clerk said he did not know about any plan to organize similar committees in
other villages.
Priority
attention will have to be directed on village-level structures in recognition
of the time-honored role of villages as the basic unit for community dialogue,
negotiation and decision-making. In all
the Islands, the village has its local leadership, its own maneaba as the focal
point for consultations and assignment of specific duties of each sector and
family group for the discharge of social obligations, its unique pattern of
decision making and mobilizing broad-based support to specific actions
perceived as contributing to collective welfare. These set ways and strong ties to the village should now be
marshaled systematically in support of developmental ends.
How to
guide the mergence of village development maneabas from out of the
institutionalized traditional configuration poses a serious challenge to
development practitioners in Kiribati.
A more serious and systematic approach to this aspect of social
preparation work is strongly recommended.
b) Fiscal
administration
The
two sources of funding available to local government are:
a) national
allocations, which pay for the salaries of central government employees and for
some operations expenses; and
b) local
taxes (licenses, land taxes, “basic rate” or residence tax per person) and
commercial activities (truck hire, rest house rent, ferry service fee, sale of
fishing gears, canteen sales, etc.), which pay for salaries of council employees,
sitting allowances, etc.
In 1991,
total revenues, including national allocations, reached AUD 81,328, while
expenditures amounted to AUD 78,684.
The balance was used mostly for office maintenance.
There is
no budget line nor are there funds left which can enable the Island Council to
direct prompt response in support of community projects. Funds for this purpose are requested through
the sectoral agencies or the Local Government Division of the MHARD.
c.) Coordination
and monitoring of local projects
A
3-hectare fishpond has just been completed and turned over by the Fisheries
Department to the Island Council. The
Japanese government provided the construction equipment, while the central
government provided counterpart funding and technical supervision. Total coasts reached AUD 80,000. Each village was expected to provide the
fries for the fishpond.
Two months
after the handover, the developments on the project are as follows:
-
the sandbags used tend to crumble;
-
the sand-packed partition walls are eroding;
-
not enough fish have been brought by village residents;
-
no training plan has been formulated for the Fisheries
Assistant, who was recently transferred from Abaiang and whose expertise was on
seaweed culture;
The
proposed Operating Guidelines for the Island Development Funds are in
Annex A.
The
project was started in 1989. An
agreement was signed with 12 islands for the project to cover a total of 72
villages. Under the agreement, the
Island Council would provide:
-
on-island transport;
-
services of the sanitarian;
-
free community
labor;
-
local material;
Difficulties
were encountered in securing these counterpart inputs. The project leader says in virtually all the
islands, the Council became the bottleneck.
No transport was provided the sanitarian; both sanitarian and the island
Clerk seemed not interested in the project.
The
sanitarian was supposed to follow up on project activities until the well was
built. The sanitarian’s indifference to
the project was due to the following causes, according to the project leader:
low salary (AUD 2 a day); no transport to be used in making the rounds of the
villages; no real direct benefit from the project. Solutions adopted by the project: “wage adjustment” was provided based on the sanitarian’s output;
motorcycles were provided by the project.
The Island
Clerk was supposed to serve as Project Controller, basically to look after the
construction materials and report on the progress of construction. The project leader found the Clerk too busy
to do these things. His recommendation
was for the council or the central government to appoint an assistant to the
clerk who would work only for the projects.
In addition, he suggests that 2 caretakers be appointed in each village,
preferably women, and that they should be paid from water user fees.
He says
solicitation of free labor is quite difficult in a situation where not all
those who would benefit from the water system could contribute labor. He suggests that those who could not give
free labor should give money instead.
He found
that soliciting free labor through the maneaba was easier. In Maiana, the Unimane itself made sure that
every family would contribute labor.
Generally, he found traditional organizations a more effective mobilizer
for project support than the council.
3.2 Provision
of Rural credit
Sources of
Rural Credit:
In
Kiribati, the sources of rural credit, aside from relatives and friends, are
moneylenders, trading stores, and relatively new institutions, such as the
credit unions and the Development Bank of Kiribati (DBK). They tend to cater to specific types of
clientele, their procedures and requirements varying from each other on account
of traditional practice, pertinent legislation and existing government
regulations or charter.
a) Moneylenders
Moneylenders
are quite a popular source of credit both in south Tarawa and the outer
islands. In Betio alone, the Council
has licensed more than 15 so far for the year.
Their operations are regulated by the Moneylenders Act of 1988 which
provides for the licensing of moneylenders and prescribes rules and procedures
on loan transactions and record keeping and maintenance. Similar acts were enforced in Kiribati as early
as 1961, but were repealed in 1975 basically for two reasons: 1) they
considered a “complex piece of legislation” not suited to the circumstances at
the time when there were no resident lawyers in the country and 2) they were
regarded more by government as a “means of raising revenue than as a detailed
scheme for controlling and regulating the activities of money lenders.”
While the
Moneylenders Act sets the interest on the loan at 12% per annum, it is common
knowledge that moneylenders charge more than its rate. Despite this high rate, however, people seem
to prefer borrowing from this source.
The common reasons cited are as follows:
-
moneylenders are “just in the neighborhood”, or that “we can
knock on the door even past midnight”;
-
“no forms to sign”
-
period for paying loan “quite flexible”;
-
“no need to talk to investigators”;
-
“we can borrow small amounts”.
Moneylenders
find their trade profitable. The
tremendous growth in their business indicates the increasing demand for credit
in both urban Tarawa and the outer islands.
One
moneylender, originally from Beru but has settled in Betio since 1970, claims
he now services close to 1,000 persons.
His capital has grown from AUD 1,000 in 1983 to AUD 10,000 this
year. He normally expects a loan to be
paid after two weeks.
While he
does not require paper work for loan applications (he merely records the name
and the amount of the loan in a notebook),
he must know the person getting the loan, his address, immediate family,
occupation and, more importantly, his track record in paying loans.
He says
the often-cited reasons for loans are: for school fees; personal needs (
medical expense, buying appliances, etc.); and for starting small business, as
in making doughnuts or juice for sale.
He does not set a limit for a loan.
Repayment
is almost 100%. He does not sue a
delinquent debtor. Usually he talks to
the person two or three times before making the threat that he will resort to
court litigation to get his money back.
He accepts non-cash payments for debts, such as bicycles, canoe,
motorboat, TV set.
The latest
to be registered in the roster of moneylenders in Betio was a seaman who
settled 10 years ago in Betio; he was from Tab North. His wife, who used to work in a local cooperative store, is
actually the person running the operations.
He says that in a month’s time, his AUD 1,500 capital has been used up
that now what is being lent out comes from the repayments. Anybody can tap him for a loan as low as AUD
5.00.
Most of
those who borrow from the two moneylenders are government employees.
b) Private
trading stores
The
trading store is a virtual credit institution.
Goods are usually given out on credit.
Sometimes the store doubles up as a money-lending outpost. The situation is the same both in Tarawa and
the outer islands.
c) Credit
Unions
The credit
unions in Kiribati were set up in Kiribati in 1987 by the various trade
unions. At present, there are 24 credit
unions in Tarawa and 15 in the outer islands (Makin, 1; Kuria, 2; Butaritari,
1; and Abaiang, 11). Most of these
credit unions were in the work place. A
few are family or clan-based credit unions, while others are church
groups. Around 85% of the loans given
are provident loans; the rest are production loans.
It has
been suggested that the credit unions be used as the implementing structure for
a Grameen Bank-type project. Several
factors will have to be taken into account:
-
members of the credit unions are those with salaries or
regular sources of income, not exactly the target of Grameen Bank-type
operations;
-
most credit unions have close organizational links with
trade unions (national offices are shared; some trade union officials are also
in the Board of directors of the Credit Union League, etc.);
-
rural outreach of credit unions is at present quite limited
due to difficulties in operating in relatively bigger islands and supervisory
and training inputs required for start-up operations.
One
example of a clan-based credit union is
the KBK Credit union. It has 55 members
belonging to 15 families, 9 in Betio and 6 in Bikenibeu. A description of its operations is as
follows:
-
each member, including the children, pay AUD 5.00 every
forth night to the treasurer;
-
any member can apply for loan, which can be as low as AUD
5.00 or as high as AUD 400.00;
-
a 2% interest is paid forth nightly;
-
a three-member committee decides on the loan applications
based on certain criteria, the most important of which is security, or the
probability for the loan to be paid back;
-
a 5-member Board of Directors serves as the policymaking
body for the union;
-
each member pays an additional AUD 1.00 every two weeks to constitute a fund for celebrations,
such as party, birthday parties, etc.;
-
AUD0.40 is also collected per member every two weeks to pay
wage of the treasurer (AUD5.00 forth nightly) and for hiring transport during
family gatherings.
Repayment
is 100%. The total cash on hand as of
April, 1992 was AUD 9000.00.
The credit
union in Abaiang is basd with the Seaweed Farmers Union. The constraint encountered here was that the
villages were so dispersed to provide effective training and supervision to
each credit union. In some villages,
membership is not enough to run a viable credit program.
The 11
village-based credit unions were consolidated into one organization with each
village union constituting a committee.
Approval of loans is done at island level. Each member pays a monthly due of AUD 0.50 and it entitled to get
a loan, usually AUD 100.00, at 10% interest.
Loans taken are mostly for school fees and for buying household
appliances.
The president
claims there is no problem in repayments.
The 500
members are mostly seaweed farmers. The
rest are coconut farmers.
In
Butaritari, the credit union was formed in the village of Onomaru with copra
workers as members. The Unimane helped
raise funds. Total savings have reached
AUD 2,000 for lending to members at certain interest (20 cents per dollar).
d) Development
Bank of Kiribati (DBK)
As
of 31 December 1991, DBK extended commercial loans totaling AUD 886,187.00, of
which AUD 537,000.00 or 60% were for borrowers in South Tarawa. North Tarawa with AUD 67,000.00 loans
accounted for 19% of the total loans given to the country’s 19 outer
atolls. As of April 1992, a total of 71
borrowers from the outer islands, with the exception of North Tarawa, applied
for loans amounting to AUD 793,598.00, with Christmas Islands accounting for
55% of the total amount (and 52% of the total number of applicants).
The
highly preferred areas, as indicated by the loan applications, are as follows:
fishing (26%); trading store (18%); video, bar, cinema, nightclub (15%); and
transport (12%).
The
average minimum amount applied for is AUD 5,510.30.
3.3 Revolving
Loan Fund Programs
Government
agencies and NGOs in Kiribati have had extensive experiences with revolving
loan fund schemes. Changes in
procedures and overall approach have been resorted to in efforts to address
implementation problems that each program has encountered:
In
1983, with a AUD 40,000 cash grant from Canada, the Fisheries Department
ordered fishing gears in bulk from Korea, Taiwan and Japan. The gears were made available on credit to
fishing groups registered with the Fisheries Association. The idea was for the fishermen to pay back
the amount of the gears taken so as to maintain the fund for buying more
gears. The system was tried initially
in five islands. By 1987, the fund had
been virtually exhausted; due to poor repayments, there was very little money
to buy additional fishing gears. The
scheme was temporarily suspended.
The
Fisheries Department subsequently intensified collections that by 1989, fishing
gears worth AUD 48,000.00 were distributed under the scheme. Of this amount, however, AUD 46,700 or 95%
were for gears distributed in south Tarawa.
Virtually the same trend happened during the following two years,
indicating lesser access to the scheme by fishing groups from the outer
islands.
In
1991, the credit system was discontinued.
Instead, fishermen had to pay for the gears first before orders were
placed by the Fisheries Assistant.
Despite the reform measure, the amount of fishing gears distributed
increased from AUD37,000 the previous year to AUD 44,000. Again, much of the
demand came from South Tarawa, which was apparently less affected by the
non-extension of credit.
By
1992, the scheme was further revised:
-
a quota for the distribution of gars was set per island
based on population density to provide for equitable sharing;
-
each Island Council now buys the gears from the Fisheries
Department to be sold with marked-up price to the fishermen.
As of
April 1992, distribution figures still showed the same pattern. Of the AUD 30,996 worth of gears
distributed, South Tarawa accounted for AUD 24,512 or 79% of total
distribution. No gears were distributed
and/ or ordered from 9 outer islands.
During the previous year, only 3 islands did not receive any gear under
the scheme.
AMAK Revolving Fund
The amount
of AUD 5,000 was made available as revolving loan fund from a total funding
assistance of AUD 80,000 to AMAK by USAID.
The money was channeled through FSP Kiribati. The balance of the funds was to be used for administrative and
travel costs of AMAK personnel in setting up and providing support to the
scheme. Under the scheme, each women’s
group registered with the Island Council could request AUD 200 as revolving
fund for income generating projects.
The
procedures for obtaining loans are as follows:
-
a women’s group requests loan through the Island Women
Interests Worker (WIW)’
-
the WIW assists the women’s group to accomplish the required
form;
-
the accomplished form is submitted to the AMAK office in
Tarawa where a committee appraises the proposed project and either approves or
disapproves it;
-
if the project is approved, the money is released to the
women’s group through the Island Council;
-
the group pays directly to AMAK with 5% interest on the
loan;
-
AMAK submits monthly financial reports to USAID through FSP;
-
FSP audits AMAK accounts regularly.
Loans were
used mostly to enable housewives to buy household goods, such as teapots,
spoons, fork, plates, etc. In some
instances, loans were used for income-generating projects, i.e. making
doughnuts, sewing garments, handicraft.
In 1986, a
team from USAID conducted an evaluation; it found the repayment good and recommended
the increase of the overall funding assistance from AUD 80,000 to AUD
100,000. Before the year ended, however
a representative of the team came back to inform AMAK that no funds would be
forthcoming. It was also announced
during the national women’s conference that year that FSP would no longer be
part of the scheme. The following year,
the revolving fund ceased operations.
The balance of the fund was divided among the women’s group and used for
other purposes not covered by the revolving fund guidelines.
The Save
the Children Federation (SCF) started the fund in 1982 with a AUD 500 grant to
Abaiang . Arorae received AUD 1000 as
its housing fund the following year, while three other islands (Makin, Tab
South, and Maiana) were given AUD 500 in 1985 and 1986.
In each
island, SCF formed a Housing Group composed of people who want to build their
own house or an additional house for the family. Each Housing Group was issued a passbook.
The
procedures for availing the loan are as follows:
-
The group will cost the total needs for construction
materials requested by members. Each
will then put up 75% of the total costs.
The members will pay based on the amount of their respective
requests. Or it can decided to raise
funds for the purpose.
-
The group fills out the housing application form and submits
it to the SCF Community Coordinator, who then verifies the application and then
submits it to SCF Tarawa.
-
If the loan is approved, materials are paid for in Tarawa
and released through the supplies store on the island which is also managed by
SCF.
-
The group collects payment from individual members and sent
directly to SCF Tarawa. An 8%
interest fee is charged for the loan
which is kept by the group as its own revolving fund for housing.
When the
SCF became the KMK in 1989, the money kept as revolving fund in Tarawa and the
five outer islands was transferred for direct administration to the
SCF-organized Community Development Committees. Now it serves as revolving fund not only for housing, but for
other projects (office supplies and general stores). Repayment remains good.
Except for
Maiana, where the money and assets were transferred to the Council rather than
to the CDCs, the Island Council has no role whatsoever in the project.
The
Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific (FSP) made available money to
buy seeds in 1990 to start a seed center.
The objective was to recover the money eventually in a three-year period
and put the center on a self-reliant basis.
During the first year, a total of AUD 11243.95 were spent not only for
seeds, but also for garden tools, fertilizer and the seeds.
Under the
scheme, the FSP staff pack the seeds, sell these seeds and the other
commodities, keep bookkeeping records and are given in return, equal share on
10% gross sales. The vegetable seeds
are sold at 50 cents per packet. By the
end of the first year, a total of AUD 8087.67 had been recovered. In 1991, only a loss of AUD 3156.28 was
incurred. FSP expects that profit will
be realized on the third year of operations.
By that time, it shall have demonstrated that a revolving fund could be
set up to maintain a seed center. Sales
from the seeds alone, however, would not be enough to make the operations
profitable.
The name
was adopted from the name of the Catholic Choir in Bikinibeu East. Organized in the early 60s, the group meets
each Sunday in its maneaba for the regular meeting and fund-raising activities
(card games, bingo, etc.). From the
winnings, a certain amount is contributed to a common fund, which is used for
loan purposes. The maximum loan allowed
is AUD 50. A 10% interest is charged.
The group
is still active. Repayment is 100%.
3.4 Organizing
to Raise Funds
Organizing
for fund raising is a popular community practice in Kiribati. Each maneaba has its own fund raising
committee. It is common in most islands
to welcome visitors (or residents who have returned from abroad) through a
maneaba gathering where they are expected to present a contribution or donation
to the community. There is hardly any
household which is not involved one way or the other in fund-raising
activities.
Kare-kare (“Throw-throw”)
In
this neighborhood group, each member is expected to produce something, i.e.
mats, ropes, hats, etc. The group
decides on the specific item to be produced at a given time. All the produce will be given to a member
for the person may decide to sell the items and earn money for the family.
A
version of the kare-kare in the work place will be the contribution of a
portion of one’s salary to a pool which goes to a group member at a particular
time. Everybody gets a chance to make
use of the other members’ savings.
Reita N Aine Ni Kamatu (KPC Women Fellowship)
Built
in June 1991, the center coordinates the activities of Protestant women’s
groups (first organized by missionaries in 1857) in the outer islands in
support of the KPC church. Activities
may include building churches or providing housing for the Pastor. Funds
are raised through handicraft-making, sewing of garments or direct
solicitation of contributions from the community.
The
Tarawa-based center also coordinates the assistance extended by external
donors. It has received assistance from
WHO and a donor providing scholarships for women. The center plans to establish a pre-school nursery.
Each
women’s group in the islands contributes AUD 50 per year to the center. In addition, each group may be asked to make
contributions in kind, such as mats, handicraft, etc. The center runs a food catering service, a restaurant, a
handicraft shop, and sewing service.
Established in 1986, the center provides regular skills training courses
for women from the outer islands.
In
1989, the agriculture assistant based in Abaiang proposed to the Island Council
the release of AUD 4000 to finance a marketing project. The proposal and the amount was approved,
and AUD 500 was released as initial amount to start the project.
The
agriculture assistant proceeded to buy vegetables and other produce and
arranged the market outlets in South Tarawa (hotels, hospital, government
offices, schools). With each trip, he
doubled the amount initially given to him that there was no more need to
utilize the entire amount approved by the Council.
The
successful project was subsequently named Buokan Nikoan Temaiu or
BUNIMAKI for short which means, roughly translated: Help make smoothly the
traditional lifestyle of I-Kiribati.
When the agriculture assistant was transferred to North Tarawa, the
Council appointed the Chairman of the Island Youth Association to serve in
concurrent capacity as marketing officer of the Island Council with the
principal duty to coordinate the project.
In
1987, as support activity to its housing project, SCF provided tools to the
various Community Development Committees.
A tool pool was set up in each of the five islands covered by the
project. The carpentry tools were
rented out to members of the housing group and the funds raised were used to
procure more tools.
The
support activity continues under the KMK.
ANNEX A
OPERATING GUIDELINES
For the Island Development Fund
1. Objectives
The Island Development Fund (IDF) aims to provide available seed money for island communities and individual households to carry out activities related to the implementation and management of the Island Development Plan. It seeks to further enhance the overall development management and administration capability of the island.
The IDF will be managed and administered by the Island Council in cooperation with existing institutions of the island. While providing development assistance for financing income generating, as well as social development projects identified in the Island Development Plan, and other projects and activities to be subsequently formulated by community groups and households in response to problems articulated in the Socio-Economic Profile, the IDF will help improve local accountability and management of development funds.
The progress reporting on the performance of the IDF and on the projects funded through it will form the basis for the Community-based Monitoring and Evaluation System which, over time, will be systematically expanded to cover all major development activities at the island level.
Through the IDF, management and decision-making over allocation of resources will be brought as close to the community and the implementing groups as possible, thus helping reinforce the decentralization and local institution building objectives of government.
2. Fund Management and Operation
The IDF shall be composed of two separate accounts:
- the Special Fund for Income Generating Projects; and
- the Special Fund for Village Social Development.
2.1 Special Fund for Income Generating Projects
Out of the AUD 15,000 grant assistance from the Forum Secretariat, an amount not exceeding AUD 10,000 shall be allocated to it.
The Island Council will administer the fund under a separate savings account with the Bank of Kiribati. Two IDC members will serve as co-signatory along with the Island Council President. The Island Clerk will continue to be the authorizing officer for payment vouchers. The Council will charge a 10% service fee on each loan granted to augment the fund. The period of repayment for each loan will be determined by the Island Council, in coordination with the IDC.
The VDC will follow up on the projects assisted and it will get 5% service fee on the total amount of repayments collected.
The account shall be administered subject to existing rules and regulations covering public funds.
The procedures for project submission will be as follows:
- Village-based community group to submit proposed project and budget to the Village Development Committee (VDC) or its equivalent;
- VDC to deliberate on the proposed projects and recommend which projects could qualify for assistance under the IDF for Income-Generating Projects.
- VDC chairperson to submit recommend projects to IDCs.
- IDC to deliberate on the projects, assess which village projects can be combined as one island project in a sector and recommend to the Island Council the priority projects which qualify for assistance under the IDF for Income-Generating Projects.
- Island Council to deliberate on the recommend projects and release funds to those projects which best meet island priorities.
The criteria for assessing proposed projects will be as follows:
- included in the package of projects of the Island Development Plan, or subsequently formulated to respond directly to problems identified in the Socio-Economic Profile;
- will yield benefits to relatively more people;
- will lead to employment and increased income of socially and economically disadvantaged groups;
- relatively fast turn-over of capital.
Reporting flow:
- The village committee will meet once a month to assess the status of project implementation;
- Report on the status of each project, including a financial report on repayments, will be submitted by the village committee to the IDC in time for the latter’s bimonthly meeting;
- The IDC will consolidate all these reports for submission to the Island Council in time for its regular meeting;
- The Island Council will provide copies of the consolidated report to the RPU, LG Division and the MFEP.
2.0 Special Fund for Village Social Development
The Island Council, in coordination with the IDC, will set an amount from the AUD 15000 grant from the Forum Secretariat to be divided equally among the villages and utilized as seed money for village social development. A revolving fund modality will also be employed.
The fund will be kept under separate account of the Island Council with the Bank of Kiribati. Two IDC members will serve as co-signatories with the Island Council President. The Island Clerk will serve as authorizing officer for payment vouchers. A record of transactions will e kept for each village.
The fund is subject to the audit requirements of the government.
The fund will be for projects and activities proposed by community groups and individual households to enable them to contribute to the accomplishment of development goals as articulated y the Island Development Plan.
The VDC will decide on each funding request in accordance with local development priorities and recommend the release of the money by the Island Council from the account. The VDC will charge a 5% service fee on each financial assistance extended.
A report on the status of the projects and the fund will be submitted by the VDC in time for the regular meeting of the IDC.
The IDC will consolidate all reports for submission to the Island Council. Copies of the regular reports will be given he RPU, LG Division and MFEP.
3. Project Proposal/ Submission Forms and Report Formats
These forms and formats will be made available through the Island Council.
28 April 1992
Tarawa, Kiribati
ANNEX B
Persons Met
1. Secretary Baraniko Baaro
Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development (MHARD)
2. Ms. Kokeaki Koae
Chief, Rural Planning Unit (RPU), MHARD
3. Mr. Koraing Taawa
Senior International Auditor
Local Government Division, MHARD
4. Ms. Rose Turvey
Project Planner
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MFEP)
5. Mr. Maneta Tekautu
Acting Manager
Development Bank of Kiribati (DBK)
6. Mr. Sam Leung Wai
ADB Consultant on detail with DBK
7. Mr. Nanimatang Karoua
Chief, Social Welfare Division
Ministry of Health and Family Planning (MHFP)
8. Mr. Ata Teotai
Project Worker
North Tarawa Integrated Rural Development Project
9. Ms. Ruta Tiriata
Project Officer, RPU
10. Ms. Parul Fernandes
Executive Director
Foundation for the People’s of the South Pacific (FSP)
11. Mr. Kamaua Bareua
President, Kiribati Credit Union League
12. Mr. Kintoba Teao
Assistant Fisheries Officer
13. Mr. Kirion Kabunateiti
Treasurer, KBK Credit Union
14. Mr. Riinga Uereti
Licensed Money Lender
15. Mr. Maribo Kabuta
Licensed Money Lender
16. Ms. Aroita Williams
Director
Catholic Women’s Center
17. Ms. Katimira Nabatiku
Assistant Director
Catholic Women’s Center
18. Ms. Teruboraake Birati
Coordinator
Reita N Aine Ni Kamatu
(KPC Women’s Fellowship)
19. Ms. Tekaiei Russell
Acting Coordinator, AMAK
20. Ms. Fenua Tamuera
Secretary, Butaritari Credit Union
21. Mr. Makin Ngatau
Island Clerk, North Tarawa
22. Mr. Bakaati Tibwere
Island Council President, North Tarawa
23. Mr. Tamiano Terubea
Chairperson
Island Development Committee (IDC), North Tarawa
24. Mr. Bwenawa Io
Agriculture Assistant, North Tarawa
25. Mr. Taukaban Tokou
Fisheries Assistant, North Tarawa
26. Mr. Tanentoa Uaruta
Chairperson, Unimane Association, North Tarawa
27. Mr. Kanoanie Boutu
Boboti Manager, North Tarawa
28. Mr. Tourakai Aito
Island Community Worker, North Tarawa
29. Mr. Roiti Tominiko
SPC Assistant, North Tarawa
30. Ms. Eritabeta Waitie
Tia Babaire Irekenrao
31. Ms. Bwebwe Nakoriri
AMAK, North Tarawa
32. Mr. Elisefou Samuelu
Sanitarian/ Plumber, North Tarawa
33. Ms. Tekatao Bamatoa
Nursing officer, North Tarawa
34. Mr. Beia Toara
Court Clerk, North Tarawa
35. Mr. Esteban de la Cruz
Fisheries Consultant
36. Mr. Taawa Kaiaua
Island Council President and Chairperson, IDC
Abaiang
37. Mr. Totimoa Kabunare
Island Community Worker, Abaiang
38. Mr. Tiwae Taremon
Chairperson, Island Youth Association and Marketing Officer
of the Island Council, Abaiang
39. Mr. Ruaia Tariri
Chairperson, JWG, Abaiang
40. Mr. Teannaki Tataua
President, BATUUTA (Seaweed Farmers Association), Abaiang
41. Mr. Deva Hapugoda
Team Leader
Outer Island Community Water Supply Project