People's Participation in Development Planning

Prepared by

Kokeaki Koae

Rural Development Planner, Rural Planning Unit

Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development

Government of Kiribati

IADP OCCASIONAL PAPER NUMBER 9

OCTOBER, 1991

INTRODUCTION

Since independence, Kiribati has recognized that the key to effective and sustainable planning for its outer islands (17 in number) is to involve the masses in the planning process. The problem is how to do or achieve this. Having tried out various approaches, and having achieved little success from them, Kiribati subsequently adopted PIPDP in February this year because of its appeal as possibly the best mode through which the desired full participation of the people could be realized.

THE PRE-PIPDP POSITION

The planning responsibility for the outer islands of Kiribati was, at independence, devolved to the local government authorities, the Island Councils, existing in all outer islands. The Councils made decisions as to what projects they considered necessary for the development o their respective islands, prioritized these projects and then submitted them as project proposals to the central government. The latter, through the Development Coordinating Committee (composed of all Secretaries), then appraised and processed them for approval by Cabinet if the cost was more than Australian $20,000 or by the Minister of Finance if the cost was less than $20,000. Once funds were obtained, the responsibility for implementation again rested with the Island Councils with supervisory and technical assistance provided by the central government.

The Island Councils had shortcomings and difficulties in carrying out their responsibilities as initiators and ultimate implementers of outer island projects. Two main causes were identified. One was the lack of consultation and cooperation between the Councils and their people. Most of the projects proposed did not have the support of the entire island. This was not most obvious when the people for whose benefit the project was implemented always demanded rewards for work done for the project, even to the extent of refusing to cooperate if such demands were not met. In most cases, it turned out that the people were not consulted in the first place and, as such, did not appreciate the relevance of the project to their well-being.

The second factor behind the difficulties faced by the Councils in carrying out their responsibilities was their general lack of skills in and understanding of the development planning process. The projects when proposed were not often properly scrutinized and appraised by the Councils. Whether it was one which would address the felt needs of the people or not, or one which required high maintenance cost, or one which could be set up using available local resources, was not often considered before the project was submitted to the central government. The result was often frustration by the people from the delays in having the project implemented caused by its lack of appeal to the government or to the donors.

A lot of projects that were proposed by the Councils were infrastructural in nature. Income-generating projects were rarely proposed. To them projects funded by the government were “gifts” and must be taken advantage of.

There was also a sense of dependency on the central government by the island Councils and their people. This was due in part to the little understanding of the island people of their role in development, and their perception of the central government as provider and caterer of their needs.

ADOPTION OF PIPDP IN KIRIBATI

When PIPDP was adopted in Kiribati, the aim was to redress the problems and the deficiencies of the Island Councils in development planning and to involve the participation of the people in development matters.

The National Core Team of Trainers is comprised of representatives from the central government Ministries and non-government organizations who are involved with rural development planning. These are Agriculture Division, Fisheries Division, Health, Education, Development Bank, Energy Planning Unit, Public Works Department, AMAK (Women’s National Council), FSP, KMK, (formerly SCF) and other Divisions of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Team is coordinated by the Rural Planning Unit of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development, which also heads the team to the outer islands.

The first two PIPDP workshops were carried out in Kuria and Aranuka and were attended by all leaders of various institutions and included Council members and public servants stationed on both of these islands. The local institutions which participated were the Women’s Group, Youth Group, Village Welfare Committee, Scholl Committee, Island Council, Village elders (unimwane) and the Church groups. The government officials on the island are represented by the Head Teacher, Medical Assistant, Fisheries Assistant, Agriculture Assistant and the Council Clerk who is the chief Island Executive Officer.

This was the first time that the representatives of the people came face to face with Island Council members and the central government representatives who formed the National Core Team of Trainers. The approach used in the workshops was very simple and was easily followed by the participants.

Through the workshops, the participants were imparted with the knowledge of how to assess their level of resources, facilities and services available on their island, and to identify the key constraints, gaps and inadequacies of the resources, services and facilities. From this, they then set out their development problems and needs and proposed solutions and measures to meet them through specific programmes and projects. In the process, it is hoped they will better understand the difficulties in getting Government assistance and the delay in attending to their requests immediately.

The nature of this approach is truly participatory. The participants who were brought together from all corners of the island were able to discuss in detail their development problems and needs and how to go about solving their problems. With the presence of the government representatives at hand, it made it more easy to clarify the responsibilities of the Council, the people and the government in addressing such development problems.

After the two workshops of Kuria and Aranuka, the PIPDP was extended to all outer islands in the Gilbert Group (17 islands) in June 1991 with the assistance of the New Zealand Government, the Forum Secretariat and UNDP IADP. Given the wide dispersion and isolation of the outer islands from the Central Administrative Centre and the need to complete all islands by the end of October, two teams were subsequently formed to carry out the PIPDP. In the first instance, it was planned to include six in a team. During the course of the visits the members of the team increased to eight and sometimes even up to nine. This has resulted from the support of the Government Departments to this approach by sending their representatives to join the team. To date, all islands have been covered.

The major problem encountered during the conduct o the workshops was insufficient funds. The funds provided by the New Zealand Government was already used by the time eleven islands had been covered, leaving four islands without any funds. This was due to the cancellation of flight schedules which, therefore, increased the cost of the stay of the National Trainers in the outer islands and, secondly, the involvement of additional trainers not budgeted for in the original plan. IADP assisted with the funding for the remaining islands.

RESULTS ACHIEVED FROM THE PIPDP

From first hand observations, the following positive results were achieves:

1. The people now have a different attitude towards their development projects. They have come to understand and appreciate the role of their Island Council and the Government and the difficulty of satisfying every particular need and that there are also limits as to what they can do. They have come to realize that they themselves are the key to their own development. Their support for this approach is reflected in their willingness to cooperate and contribute towards projects which they have been involved in planning. For example, they are willing to attend training programmes which they themselves have proposed without demanding any sitting allowance or provision of meals during the course of the training, as was usually the case. Their mentality of dependency on the Government as provider and caterer of their needs has now been replaced by commitment and full interest in all that they want to set up for their development.

2. The people have come to understand the criteria or requirements of development projects. They have come to understand why there are always delays in releasing funds for development projects and how to design effective projects to satisfy their own development problems and needs.

3. Now they know how to make their own profiles and plans which set out their needs according to how they really feel it and how they want it resolved.

4. The process itself has assisted in enhancing the community’s confidence in planning for their own development and their appreciation or allocation of resources. It also provides a mechanism for Government agencies to work together as a team in addressing development problems and needs.

5. The end result of the PIPDP process, i.e. the Island Development Plans and Profiles and strengthening institutions, have attracted funding from donors.

THE PIPDP AND ONWARDS

The most obvious output of the PIPDP is the profiles and plans for each island. The profile provides information on the current situation of the island. In particular, it looks at the present level of resources, facilities and services available on the island. The plan, on the other hand, presents a set of island development projects and how these projects and programmes were arrived at, based on local problems identified.

It is planned that the results of the PIPDP will become part of the Seventh National Development Plan for the plan period 1992 – 1995.

CONCLUSION

The PIPDP has been completed in seventeen outer islands of the Kiribati Group. Despite this, there are still islands to be covered in the Line and Phoenix Group in the near future.

The process is still not completed yet. The next challenge is to strengthen plan implementation and management capability at both the island and national level. This, therefore, means that there is still a need for a continued on-going technical assistance to maintain what has already gained and achieved during the process. This is to ensure that a firm base is properly established for sustainable local level development in Kiribati and the interest of the people in the new approach is maintained.