Community Livelihoods And Civil Society Organisations In - UNDP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4. Key formal education problems – an overview of common findings Aspect Education levels Facilities and services Common findings from the villages assessed • In most villages the average education level is primary/elementary (SD) • In most villages parents are not involved in the school or in formal education of their children • Literacy varies, both between children and adults and from village to village • In some villages families do not encourage children to attend school – some have other priority economic/productive activities; some do not have a culture or history of formal education • In most villages families very much want better education for their children and lament this is not happening • There are almost no vocational or further education opportunities for school drop outs and other groups such as women • All villages assessed had primary/elementary (SD) school buildings with varying numbers of classrooms • There is rarely a full cohort of teachers present, working in the village schools • Some villages have schools but no teachers or no books • Many districts do not have middle schools Funding • Some infrastructure is ‘delivered’ from outside, paid for from government funds • Many villages have YPK, YPPK or YPPGI (church) schools but how these are funded was not discussed in the reports Ownership • Degrees of community ‘ownership’ of schools vary Needs • Reliable presence of teachers working in the schools • Better engagement of parents in the school system • Access to the next level of education, in most cases middle school or high school 3.4 Other issues raised In addition to the abovementioned issues about how infrastructure and basic education and health services are provided to village populations, and how current government processes and programs do not generally translate to feelings of ownership or improved livelihoods, amid the NGOs’ analyses of community livelihoods, the issue of ‘pendampingan’ is raised several times. ‘Pendampingan’ is a term that is very popular amongst government and civil society actors in Papua alike and merits some consideration in this summary document. It literally means ‘accompaniment’ and refers variously to technical assistance, extension, support or guidance. An important nuance, however, to the way that the NGOs use the term is the idea of companionship, partnering or a kind of ‘mutual presence’. The quality of ‘pendampingan’ appears critical to the success of any type of activity or intervention in the villages assessed. 21
All the NGOs noted that in the villages that have had ‘pendampingan’ from CSO have some motivation to develop and are able to think more critically about their needs than the villages that have had no CSO guidance or support. However the programs or efforts made by CSOs have not lead to changes in the people’s actual conditions, in particular their economic conditions, because the ‘pendampingan’ was insufficiently long. In general, the guidance/technical assistance provided by CSOs is only one year because that is the donors’ funding period. Almamater (2005) suggested that based on their experiences, technical assistance and programs would be more effective if implemented over a three to five year period: “the community and target groups will become self-supporting if this need for longer assistance is understood from the outset, and the planning, implementation phases work on that timeframe to achieve sustainable increased productivity and activities”. In the few villages assessed that had ever had some form of government program, the NGOs also explained that they have all failed, also due to lack of any ‘pendampingan’. They noted that such activities also fail because they are not based on a serious assessment of community livelihoods and macro conditions, or only address one aspect of a problem, do not respond to community priorities and are not well integrated with local social and cultural systems. Examples from the villages assessed include cocoa seedlings being delivered with little or no instruction, let alone demonstration, training or support for production and marketing (PERDU report, 2005); a number of rainwater tanks being delivered to a village without any clarification of why that number was chosen or how households were supposed to use and maintain them (Almamater report, 2005); condoms being distributed but no continuous suppliers involved such that once they were used people reverted to not using them (YPMD report, 2005); and villages receiving diesel generators but no regular or affordable fuel supplies on which to run them (YALHIMO report, 2005). Analyzing the impacts of external assistance, YALHIMO, PERDU and YPMD all take issue with the form of ‘aid’ that has reduced communities’ creativity and created dependency. Although many local people have a wealth of natural resources available to them, many are no longer able to put them to optimal use to meet their daily needs. Examples that the NGOs provide from their assessments are the use of OTSUS and Bangdes funds which, although relatively large amounts, are not generally put to productive use or yield any sustained benefits for communities. In certain villages these funds have simply been divided evenly between the heads of households such that the funds are perceived as routine income. The tendency for such aid to be given as cash, without technical assistance or supervision, has lead to a situation where some local people just sit and wait for the next round of assistance and do not endeavour to improve their lot through independent or voluntary effort. Such dependence is considered by the NGOs as an extremely serious impact that must be recognized and addressed as a lesson, so that future assistance works on a model of constructive cooperation for village development. Embedded in the NGO reports are also commentaries on the recent formation of new administrative areas (‘pemekaran kabupaten baru’). Notwithstanding some general analysis 22
Page 1 and 2: Community Livelihoods and Civil Soc
Page 3 and 4: Executive Summary Papua, Indonesia
Page 5 and 6: for them. In villages close to town
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 9 and 10: 1. Introduction 1.1 Brief backgroun
Page 11 and 12: Table 1. NGOs and the study areas S
Page 13 and 14: 2. A Snapshot of Community Liveliho
Page 15 and 16: transportation does not exist and g
Page 17 and 18: expertise passed from generation to
Page 19 and 20: 2.2.3 Social and cultural capital I
Page 21 and 22: wait for the following season to co
Page 23 and 24: Also in Biak and unlike elsewhere i
Page 25 and 26: not emphasized in all NGO reports,
Page 27: 3.3 A Snapshot of formal education
Page 31 and 32: • Non-government organisations (N
Page 33 and 34: Table 5. Estimates of CSOs active i
Page 35 and 36: The following (translated) section
Page 37: 2. Consistent guidance and companio

Community Livelihoods And Civil Society Organisations In - UNDP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?