PROGRESS REPORT ON THE KIRIBATI OUTER ISLANDS
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMME
(OIDPIMP)
PREPARED
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF KIRIBATI
AND THE
FORUM SECRETARIAT
By:
UNDP/OPS
INTEGRATED ATOLL DEVELOMENT PROJECT
AUGUST
1992
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE OUTER ISLAND DEVELOMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (OIDPIMP) IN KIRIBATI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 Consultations
on OIDPIMP implementation were conducted by IADP with 41 resource persons from
government agencies, Island Councils and other local institutions in South and North
Tarawa and in Abaiang for the period 8 April to 1 May 1992.
A major
output of these consultations was the modification on the revolving fund scheme
to suit the specific needs and situation in Kiribati. Rather than establish it as a stand-alone rural credit facility
for a specific sector, i.e. women, youth, fisherman etc., it has been
redesigned as an institutionalized fund to serve as catalyst for mobilizing
village and sub-village communities for the various stages of the project
development cycle (project identification, preparation, appraisal; submission
and approval, monitoring and acquittal of funds).
2.0 Social
preparation and training activities were designed around the central task of
setting-up the funds for the Island and each village to ensure that local
development management capabilities would be enhanced in planning and
implementing projects supported by these funds. A core team of trainers from MHARD and DBK, under IADP guidance,
was intensively trained in carrying out the various activities. The revised designs were later implemented
by the core trainers in Kuria and Makin.
The experiences gained in implementing OIDPIMP activities in all three
islands became the basis for training additional national trainers from various
ministries in another island, Abaiang.
The
major outputs of these initial social preparation and training activities in
each island covered by OIDPIMP are as follows:
·
Establishment of the Island Development Fund (IDF) as a
revolving fund facility both for income-generating and village-level social
development projects;
·
Organization of a village/ward-level committee to assist
local communities identify, prepare and submit projects for IDF assistance;
·
Identification, actual preparation, and submission of projects
from the village or ward in accordance with procedures and policies formulated
by the Island Council in coordination with the Island Development Committee
(IDC);
·
Disbursement of funds to income-generating and social
development projects appraised by the IDC and village committees and approved
by the Island Council.
3.0 Recommendations
for future OIDPIMP activities in Kiribati
·
Provide an additional AUD 15,000.00 for relatively bigger
islands (Abaiang, Tab North, Tab South, Butaritari and Nonouti);
·
Intensify advocacy
activities on the innovative features of OIDPIMP both at national and regional
levels, among donors, policy makers and planners;
·
Review roles of local institutions and entities in
accordance with new development tasks with the view of further enchanting
management capabilities;
·
Draw lessons from the implementation of the revolving fund
scheme and generate insights on how best to reach needy households and
community groups with assistance.
4.0 The following
reports/documents have been produced by IADP in the process of providing
technical assistance to the government of Kiribati in the implementation of
OIDPIMP:
·
Report on Mission to Kiribati on Implementation Planning
for the Outer island Development Plan Implementation and Management Programme
(OIDPIMP)
(May
1992)
·
Kiribati Training Programme on Social Preparation and
Island/ Village Project Development and Implementation
(May
1992)
·
Revised Facilitator’s Guide – OIDPIMP Training Programme
(June
1992)
·
Report on Initial Activities Undertaken in Aranuka,
Kiribati for the Outer Island Development Plan Implementation and Management
Programme (OIDPIMP)
31 July 1992
Progress Report on the Outer
Island Development Plan Implementation and Management Programme (OIDPIMP) in
Kiribati
1.0
Introduction
Launched
in July this year, the Outer island Development Plan Implementation and
Management Programme (OIDPIMP) has been carried out in Kiribati initially in
four islands (Aranuka, Kuria, Makin and Abaiang). Funded by the Forum Secretariat and with technical assistance
from the UNDP-OPS Integrated Atoll Development Project (RAS/88/014), OIDPIMP
seeks to give impetus to the implementation of projects contained in the Island
Development Plan or those which will be subsequently identified and formulated
based on the Island socio-economic Profile.
Both the profile and the four-year plan of the country’s 16 outer
islands were outputs of the IADP-assisted Participatory Island Profiling and
Development Planning workshops conducted last year.
OIDPIMP
implements activities aimed at enabling community groups, local government
entities, technical agencies and NGOs exercise and further refine project
development skills. Moreover, the
programme identifies relevant community structures and practices which can be
further enhanced towards sustained development plan implementation and
management. Its package of
interventions basically consist of:
·
provision of funds, amounting to AUD 15,000.00 per island,
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 Committee;
·
hands-on training for al community groups, government
agencies and NGOs involved in the participatory project development process at
island and village level;
·
setting-up of a community-based monitoring and reporting
system linked to relevant agencies at national and subnational levels;
·
upgrading of national-level skills in the planning, programming,
monitoring and evaluation of all types of projects in remote island
communities.
This Report will deal on the
major activities so far undertaken and indicate possible implications to future
activities.
2.0
Major programme Activities
The key
activities conducted so far are as follows:
2.1
Review of country experiences relevant to OIDPIMP
components
Island council operations vis-à-vis development projects was studied in North Tarawa and Abaiang. In both islands, the council has no funds at its disposal to respond promptly to community projects. Funds for this purpose are requested through the sectoral agencies or the Local Government Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development (MHARD).
While
the Island Development committees in both islands have met regularly since the
government approved sitting allowances for non-government members more than a
year ago, they still do not monitor development projects nor are they active in
helping community groups identify and prepare projects to solve local
problems. They tend to merely serve as
fora for threshing out implementation details for projects initiated by central
ministries.
The
review noted that in North Tarawa, attempts were made early this year to
establish development committees in 5 out of the island’s 13 villages. No guidelines, however, were formulated
regarding their specific tasks and the process of how to get them organized
without posing a threat to existing institutional arrangements.
In the
experience of the Outer Island Community Water Supply Project, the Island
Council has been identified as the bottleneck during implementation. Its team leader says that in practically all
the project islands, the council does not honor its commitment to provide
transport to sanitarians; the Island Clerk is to o busy with other concerns;
and voluntary labor is difficult to solicit.
The
three-tiered system of local governance, consisting of the Island council, council-paid
employees, and national government employees on detail to the council, seems
unwieldy for the Island Clerk to manage.
There is apparently duplicating centers of initiatives and authority
with the end result that no real local decision-making vis-à-vis develoment
projects could take place. Virtually
all decisions have to be referred t central ministries. Although water is a scarce resource in the
outer islands, the project suffers ironically from the apparent indifference of
the target beneficiaries.
In
Kiribati, the institutionalized sources of rural credit are the moneylenders,
trading stores, and relatively new entities, 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 f traditional practice,
pertinent legislation and existing government regulations or charter.
The
scope of operations for each source or rural credit has been studied, in
addition to its relative advantages and effectiveness. Although it is common knowledge that
moneylenders charge an interest rate higher than the 12% per annum set by law,
they remain the most sought-after source of credit both in south Tarawa and the
outer islands. Their popularity is due
to accessibility, practically serving as a 24-hour neighborhood bank;
practically no tedious paper work and credit investigations required; and the
flexibility as to the period of repayment.
The
trading store is a virtual credit institution.
Goods are usually given out on credit.
A store often serves also as a moneylending outpost. The situation is the same in Tarawa and the
outer islands.
First
established in Kiribati in 1987 by the various trade unions, there are now 24
credit unions in Tarawa and 15 in the outer islands. Most of these credit unions are in the work place. A few are family or clan-based credit
unions, while others are church groups.
Around 85% of the loans f\given are provident loans; the rest are
production loans. Members of credit
unions are those with salaries or regular sources of income.
As of
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 accounted for 19% of the total
loans given t the country’s outer islands.
The shift to the rural areas has been noted in 1992. As of April, the outer islands, excepting
North Tarawa, applied for loans totaling AUD 793,598.00, with Christmas Islands
accounting for 55% of the total amount (and 52% of the total number of
applicants). The average minimum amount
applied for is AUD 5,510.00 in the following highly preferred areas: fishing
(26%); trading store (18%); video, bar, cinema, nightclub (15%); and transport
(12%).
Revolving
loan fund schemes
Government agencies and NGOs in Kiribati have had extensive experiences with revolving loan fund schemes, which included: the Fishing Gears Revolving Fund of the Fisheries Division; the AMAK Revolving fund; the SCF Revolving Fund for housing; the FSP Revolving Fund for Seed Center; and the Nei Kaue Revolving Fund of the Roman Catholic parish in Bikinibeau East. The review of these schemes showed the specific changes in procedures and overall approach which have been resorted to in efforts to address implementation problems.
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 were they are expected to present a contribution or donation
to the community. The review noted
specific activities or projects which have been implemented to raise funds: the
kare-kare practice in the villages and work places; fund-raising
activities of the KPC women Fellowship and the Catholic Women’s Center; a
marketing project run by the Island Council in Abaiang; and the SCF tool pool
project for carpenters.
The
review has identified the following institution-building issues relevant to
strengthening rural development planning and management:
·
integration of the indigenous local-level decision-making structures
and processes into the development process;
·
restructuring of local government and other institutions,
such as the IDC, in the light of development management tasks;
·
appointment of a development coordinator to assist the
Island Clerk;
·
policy guideline on sitting allowances and solicitation of
community labor for development projects;
·
review of the tasks and functions of the Rural Planning
Unit taking into account new thrusts and development in the rural sector.
2.2
Formulation of guidelines for the revolving fund
component; designing and detailed planning of training and social preparation
activities
In consultation with other agencies (Home Affairs and Rural Development; Finance and Economic Planning; Development Bank of Kiribati), guidelines were prepared for operating the revolving fund. Based on the findings of the review, it was agreed that the revolving fund would best serve as an Island Development Fund administered jointly by the Island Council and the Island Development Committee to support both income-generating and village-level social development projects. Terms of repayment for the two categories of projects, as well as funding procedures, were drafted.
A
training and social preparation programme was subsequently designed to train the
core team of trainers based at MHARD and to produce the initial outputs of
OIDPIMP:
·
projects contained in the Island Development Plan (or
identified based on the island profile) and proposed for immediate
implementation by each village;
·
procedures and
terms of repayment finalized the smooth operations of the Island Development
Fund;
·
village-level structure identified and organized for
participatory project development and implementation and for community-based
monitoring and reporting system.
2.3
Validation of procedures and guidelines for the
Island Development Fund, the various training designs, and intensive training
of the core training team
Initial
OIDPIMP implementation in Aranuka resulted in the following:
Establishment of the Island Development Fund (IDF), a revolving fund facility for both income-generating and village-level social development projects
The
Island Council and the Island Development Committee were guided to make key
policy decisions on how to use and maintain the AUD 15,000.00 grant as part of
OIDPIMP’s hands-on development management capability-building component. In Aranuka, AUD 10,000.00 was allocated
under the Special Fund for Income Generating Projects and the balance of AUD 5,000.00
was channeled to the Special Fund for Village Social Development Projects.
A 3%
service fee is charged on the amount of financial assistance for each category
of projects with the fees being made part of the respective special funds and
thus help ensure fund maintenance. The
service fees on social development projects will be made part of the Special
Fund under the administration of each village.
Policy
guidelines were also formulated on the maximum amount of financial assistance
for each category of projects; the terms and frequency of repayments; legal and
other sanctions in case of non-payment; submission and appraisal of projects;
accounting and auditing procedures.
Putting in place a village-based project development process involving the close partnership of local government units, technical agencies, traditional and other community organizations in the systematic identification, preparation, appraisal, approval and acquittal of v\development projects under IDF assistance
A
sequential orientation and training process was conducted in Aranuka with the
overall objective of clarifying the roles of the various government entities,
community organizations and individual households in all aspects of OIDPIMP
implementation (project development and management, monitoring and reporting,
IDF maintenance for island and village welfare). Project identification and submission procedures were also
established data ward/village and island levels.
The key
activities in this training process are as follows –
The Island
council members were sensitized on their role as local development
managers. OIDPIMP was shown to them as
an excellent opportunity to exercise decision-making skills in relation to
projects identified by the village people themselves. As part of the participatory dosing of the training program, they
were encouraged to formulate basic policy decisions regarding the effective
administration of the island Development Fund.
Supplementary procedures were provided based on government regulations
vis-à-vis the handling of public funds.
The
members of the IDC were shown the importance of its role in the total
capability-building efforts. Their
tasks were reviewed and given fresh interpretation in the context of OIDPIMP’s
strategy to bring project development as close to the community as
possible. Appeals were also made to
their sense of community service and spirit of volunteerism.
Organization and orientation of the Botaki ni Karikirake ibukin Kaawa (BKK) based either in the village or ward as local-level committee for project development tasks
Specific
guidelines were drawn up on how to evolve this structure from out of existing
decision-making forum at the village or ward levels. The objective was to formalize in a broader development context
what already exists for other community tasks and obligations. Both the Island Council and the IDC were
consulted on how to form the BKK. In
the various maneabas of Aranuka, the Unimane and other sectors were likewise
consulted. By the time the team arrived
to formally organize the BKK, the village and ward residents had been briefed
by these sectors on the tasks of the local development body and thus were
prepared to elect the members.
Project identification and preparation workshop for the BKKs, community groups and interested households
Existing
island development profiles and plans were used at village and ward levels for
identifying both income-generating and social development projects. Village and ward residents were encouraged t
identify problems actually affecting households in the locality. They were urged to think of projects as
solutions to these problems.
Simple,
easy–to-follow questions were prepared to guide the BKK and the community
residents in preparing project proposals for IDF assistance.
Participants
were trained on how to accomplish application forms.
Project
appraisal workshop for the IDC and the BKKs
Simple project appraisal techniques were taught the IDC and BKK members. Joint workshops were held which simulated presentation by the BKKs of actual proposals submitted from the village or ward. IDC members took turns asking questions designed to appraise each project presented. In a separate simulated meeting to appraise projects, the IDC recommended to the island council three income-generating projects out of four submitted for appraisal by the BKKs.
The
three recommended projects (chainsaw project, pig raising and procurement of engine
for a motorboat) were among projects listed for Island Council implementation
under the Aranuka Island Development Plan.
Village groups have in effect taken responsibility for the
implementation of these projects after identifying them as crucial for solving
locally-felt problems. Each BKK
“defended” the projects proposed as part of the training design to further
deepen understanding of key factors to consider in preparing and appraising
projects.
In case
of the project which was returned to a BKK for “further review,” the IDC cited
weaknesses in justification and deviation from requirements regarding the
naming of guarantors for the repayment.
The IDC
members were briefed on which form to use in recommending income-generating
projects to the Island council for funding under the IDF revolving scheme. Under OIDPIMP procedures, the IDC can reject
project proposals or return them to the BKKs for review or reformulation based
on findings from the appraisal.
Workshop on ranking of proposed projects for the Island Council
A
user-friendly rating card for prioritizing projects was devised for the island
council. The council actually used it
in prioritizing the income-generating projects recommended by the IDC. Scores were given on the relationship of each
project to the goals of the Island Development Plan; perceived effect on other
problems; actual households benefited; ability to pay back the funding
assistance extended; impact on community skills; and on possible effects to the
environment.
The Island
council rated the chainsaw project from BKK Takeang 239 points; pig raising
form BKK Buariki North, 224 points; and boat engine project of BKK Buarua,
215.5 points.
The BKKs
submitted a total of 7 social development projects for approval by the island
council. Some of the proposals were
referred back to the BKKs for review on account of certain deficiencies in the
application. Among the approved
requests were for buying a bicycle to ferry children to and from school and to
be used in collecting coconuts, and for school fees.
The
Island Council and the IDC agreed that the BKKs would submit social development
projects directly to the Council since their nature do not require tedious
appraisal and to reduce the time for processing. Procedures were also devised to enable prompt response to
emergency requests for assistance, such as in cases of accidents, sudden
illness, etc.
The
Island clerk was oriented on the use of the project registry and monitoring
forms. A filing system for submitted
and approved projects was also devised.
Intensive training of a core team of trainers to implement OIDPIMP in the other two islands, Kuria and Makin
A core
team of 8 trainers from MHARD and DBK was trained to conduct the various
activities. Resource persons from Finance,
DBK, and the SPC North Tarawa Project assisted in devising the monitoring and
project submission forms and in translating into I-Kiribati the various
training handouts. The visual aids were
prepared by the Mobile Training Unit of the MHARD Local Government Division.
The DBK
representative joined the training at Aranuka and was effectively mobilized in
preparing simple and easy-to-follow project submission and approval forms.
The
conduct of orientation and training activities in Aranuka was considered the
practicum for the core team of trainers based at MHARD. It was directly managed by the IADP
Community Development Specialist/Trainer.
Assessments conducted by the CDS/T and the team resulted in a revised
Facilitator’s Guide for the OIDPIMP orientation and training activities.
2.4
OIDPIMP in Kuria and Makin
The
members of the core team were divided into two teams, one for OIDPIMP
implementation in Kuria (17-23 June) and the other for Makin (19-25 June). They carried out the orientation and training
activities based on revised designs.
BKKS were organized and project proposals were generated from each
village. The Island councils, IDC and
traditional organizations nod NGOs were oriented on their respective
roles. The performance of each team was
assessed by the IADP.
2.5
Training of national trainers in Abaiang
A total of 18 national trainers from six national agencies (agriculture, fisheries, health, DBK, AMAK, public works) attended the training of trainers conducted by the IADP in Abaiang. OIDPIMP implementation in Abaiang with its 16 villages was used as part of the hands-on training. The training also provided the participants an opportunity to find out how the projects of their respective agencies were perceived by village people and to appreciate the role of social preparation in project development.
3.0
Reflections/Implications to Future Activities
3.1
Need to increase the amount of the revolving fund
for bigger islands (Abaiang, Tab South, Tab North, Butaritari, Nonouti)
The
amount of AUD 15,000.00 for both income generating and social development
projects would not be enough to fund the projects initially generated by the
training due to the greater number of villages which has to be extended the
revolving fund facility.
The
recommendation of national trainers is to double the amount for bigger islands
so that substantial seed money can be provided each village.
3.2
Need for more national-level advocacy activities to
reinforce programme gains so far achieved
In preparation for expansion to the next group of four islands, advocacy activities will have to be undertaken to make sure policymakers, planners and donors appreciate the innovative features of the programme and thus merit greater support in the future.
Some of these
features are as follows-
The
island Council itself decides on the basic terms and conditions of assistance
under IDF. The IDC is primed on its
tasks and consulted on practically all field operations and procedural issues
during OIDPIMP implementation.
Traditional and other community-based organizations are involved in
organizing the BKKs. The BKKs and the
community are left to themselves to identify which projects to propose for
assistance without the usual sectoral advocacy. The only inputs are those on problems identified at island level,
the need to match projects with these problems and the appeal to spend the
funds wisely t ensure continuing response to local problems.
On-the-spot availability of funds to support project development and implementation
No doubt
a vital lesson from the moneylenders.
It creates credibility to the government’s renewed commitment to
grassroots development. The funds are
there were the users are; the people know exactly how much money is available
as seed funds for development projects, the potential for increasing the funds,
the allocation for each village, the procedures for project submission and the
sanctions involved in non-repayment of such assistance.
Easy-to-follow lessons ad procedures for each step of the village-based project development process
Painstaking
efforts are exerted to translate training handouts and visual aids into
I-Kiribati. Forms for funding requests,
project monitoring, etc. are reduced t the barest minimum.
Emphasis
on the village or ward as the basic unit for undertaking project development
tasks
The unit
closes to the household, namely the village or ward, becomes the focus for
starting tasks related to project development.
It promises to be a fertile area for innovative approaches in helping
island communities achieve sustainable development. Having the BKKs evolve from existing decision-making structure
did not meet any resistance nor delay in any of the four islands, indicating
that at village or ward level, the people know who are best qualified for
specific tasks.
The
unwillingness to combine with other wards for a village-level development
entity shows that at current level of social consciousness, the neighborhood
takes priority over larger divisions.
Rather than resist it, OIDPIMP in fact takes it as given, creates the
BKK where the forum for local decision-making exists, and starts the project
development process right where basic community decisions are deliberated upon.
The
implication is that advocacy for development programmes and projects should
extend to as far down as possible.
OIDPIMP seeks to bring development approaches to where the action is –
in the village or ward which functions as the basic unit of decision-making in
the island.
3.3
Need to fully exploit the potential of the IDCs
In each
of the four islands (Aranuka, Kuria, Makin and Abaiang), the IDC has assumed
tasks required for the smooth implementation of the OIDPIMP. Each IDC is committed to meet monthly
meetings to appraise projects. IDC
members are also expected to closely monitor the status of projects under IDF
assistance through their close liaison with the BKKS. Each IDC member has a specific BKK to monitor.
How long
this enthusiasm can be maintained by the IDC remains to be seen. It will depend on a lot of factors: the
frequency of monitoring visits by MHARD; the support and recognition extended
by sectoral agencies; the cooperation of the Island council; the support of
policymakers and planners, etc. The
IDC’s membership is multisectoral as it multi-village. It has therefore the potential to be fully
developed as the catalytic arm of the Island Council in drawing maximum local
involvement in development planning and management as originally conceived by
the government upon its inception in 1990.
3.4
Need to harvest lessons on extending financial
assistance to needy households and community groups and simultaneously build
development management capabilities
As
designed, field-tested and implemented in Kiribati, OIDPIMP has the potential
to put in place a viable credit scheme for the poor aside from strengthening
structures and processes for sustainable development management.
The
elements for success are there: simple
forms and procedures; village or ward-based supervision and collection; high
degree of community awareness; immediate access to funding sure; supportive
social organization, i.e. maneaba, church, BKK; service fee and terms of
repayment determined by the local people; intimate knowledge of the personal
background of beneficiaries.
MPs in
practically all the islands covered by OIDPIMP were also mobilized to attend
the various workshops in their capacity as members of the IDC. Such involvement of political leaders should
be encouraged t ensure support to the unique participatory approaches being
developed by OIDPIMP.
The
Island council members in all four islands have shown enthusiasm to the
village-based project development process although it will mean their
diminished influence in determining island projects. Their continued sensitization to the requirements of
participatory processes will also have to be further encouraged under OIDPIMP.