Holding Grudges on Sakenan

The World Bank's website contains a feature article which lauds the coming of age of micro finance. Indeed, when the absolutes of the matter are analyzed it would be a very callous individual who would interject and introduce a negative element to the micro finance dialogue. I will bear my teeth however briefly now and introduce one dissenting voice, which like a tropical rain storm will rage for a few moments before subsiding. Again, micro finance and the promotion of micro enterprise in communities who, because of their economic and social standing do not have access to traditional financial services, is a very good thing. This simply draws attention to what can go wrong from an organizational standpoint, and from that, what will go wrong in a community standpoint.

Pura Dalem Sakenan is one of the most important temples in Hindu Bali. The ancient temple sits on an island that was once known as Sire Angin (Bhs. Indonesia: Siapa Kasian) and is home to six Hindu banjars and one Bugis kampung. In the mid-90's the island underwent a privately sponsored land reclamation project, which expanded its mass from approximately 112 to 365 hectares. The project was authored by a consortium of developers and was begun with tourism-related aims. However, the events of 1998 led the project to a complete halt, and since the economic and ecological environments of the island have been made vastly different and left undeveloped and in a vacuum.

The men and women of the island make their living from the sea. Schooling and education traditionally was not considered a priority. Yet the many hundreds of meters of corals dredged from the island's fringing reefs for the land reclamation project made eking a living from the sea an increasingly difficult prospect; and to compound this, when fishing and collection activities did occur, the use of cyanide was widespread. (For those who are unsure of what this means I urge you to take only the most cursory glance at Google Scholar to see the abundance of papers and studies that address the negative effects of cyanide on marine organisms.) Because of Indonesia's prominent place in the marine aquarium trade, a large percentage of collection activities were geared to providing dealers with reef fishes and corals for international export.

Enter a consortium of local NGOs. Their goals are admirable, their commitment unquestioned, their community-based efforts impeccable... So what went wrong?

Development as a key theme of the 21st century necessarily means that many facets of the larger subject are also in vogue. One such fashionable idea is community-based ownership of resources and enterprise; from this micro finance and the development of grass roots business stems.

The consortium of NGOs had already experienced great success in Desa Les, Kecamatan Tejakula, North Bali, where a community of fishermen and women were transformed from destructive exploiters to responsible managers of the marine environment. A private company with full community-ownership (PT. Bahtera LEStari) was formed, and since the community has experienced greater economic and ecological opportunity.

To follow this lead in other areas seemed logical. A program to transfer high-end aquaculture technology from leading western research institutions (among them Florida Institute of Technology) to low-cost community-based applications in Southeast Asia had already been very competitive in The Philippines. This model, along with the Les business plan, was essentially transferred. Construction began (see photograph above) on an aquaculture farm, yet before it could go operational the NGO funding sources dried up. Not only could the farm not be finished, but staff salaries could not be paid for several months.

These difficulties have resulted in a decreased level of trust in the community. Never underestimate the poor, they can hold grudges for a very long time, making elephants appear forgetful. In my eyes the NGO consortium has irreparably damaged itself in the communities' eyes. They are seen as having a less than 100% commitment to this project. How do I know? Because I live in the community and am close with them, and as an outsider they have over several months become comfortable speaking to me because they know that I am an outsider and, what more, a very critical one.

Several months on and the project remains unfinished. The idea and the planning behind it were well done and admirable. The problem was in application. And here's my point: people are not play things, ergo don't play with them. The idea of community ownership and direct linking with international markets (in the Les model) is a very good one; yet speaking and doing are different things, and in this instance I was involved in a 'speaking' project which could not deliver what it promised. And that is inherently wrong. The only reason events like this transpire is because NGOs (many of them) are not held accountable. It is generally assumed that a Samaritan organization can transcend CSR policies. But the very looseness of NGOs is their Achilles Heel, and they will not be competitive unless there is a staked deliverable, and in the Private sector that is money.

End of story: Don't manipulate the poor because an idea is currently in vogue. Don't abandon projects that you haven't thought through, in fact don't even start them unless they've been thought through. And finally: What works theoretically will not always work practically; the difference being that paper and computer screens don't hold grudges.