Community Livelihoods And Civil Society Organisations In - UNDP

The following (translated) section from the Almamater report (2005) portrays the same
issues raised by the NGOs who assessed the situation in other parts of Papua:
“Especially for local NGOs, achievements are limited to the achievement of targets
within the planned timeframe and budget. Continuity is highly dependent on the
availability of financial support from donors. This means that many programs are
implemented but are not sustainable as assistance is not provided until the target
group has developed self-reliance.
A lot of programs are developed due to ‘trend funding’, such that activities are not
fully planned or based on community needs and are incidental in nature. These
programs’ results are limited to the achievement of implementation targets and do
not consider sustainability or benefit the target groups. The programs are developed
more in accordance with the conditions and wishes of the funding providers than with
those of the community.
Many programs overlap and have no synergy with the programs run by government
or other parties, including other NGOs. This leads to confusion and disinterest
amongst the target groups. It also makes them passive in their attitude, so they do
not particularly care about the achievement of programs. The target
groups/communities generally accept all programs in the hope of benefiting from any
assistance that will meet their immediate needs. They do not consider sustainability
and access to broader benefits as a result of the programs’ implementation, such
that when it is finished they go back to how they were before.
Programs are generally not developed on the basis of comprehensive studies of
community life and its relationship to human and natural resources, or on analysis of
local needs, problems and sustainability issues. This means that for many programs
that are implemented, high dependency results, rather than improved sustainable
community livelihoods.
The problems are both in getting donors that are willing to fund a large and continued
activity, and the limited organizational and human resources/skills in planning and
communicating with the networks of funding providers”.
The problem of reliance on donors is strongly emphasized, with PERDU for example noting
that not one of the 20 NGOs operating in their study area had any independent source of
income. The situation faced by other forms of CSOs was not addressed, however in many
cases the NGOs noted that church organizations in the villages were limited in their facilities
and scope of work, presumably due in part to funding issues. Other, related problems that
greatly affect local NGOs in particular include (from Almamater and Yalhimo reports):
• The low levels of job security mean that it is difficult to retain staff. The majority of
experienced staff tend to go to other organizations that can better ensure incomes,
whether they be international NGO branches, donors, profit-based organizations or
the government;
• Very limited organizational capacity and human resources amongst their staff, which
means that it is difficult to communicate with international funding providers; and
• Funding providers’ understanding of the geography and characteristics of the area is
limited and this makes it difficult to plan programs in the interior/remote areas where
operating costs are high.
28